Live-in carer made redundant after care recipient moved: failure to consider furlough made dismissal unfair
A live-in care assistant was unfairly dismissed after her role ended when the care recipient moved into a care home. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider furlough and conducted a rubber-stamp appeal.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #live-in-care
- #furlough
- #section-38-award
- #rubberstamp-appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a live-in care assistant from 23 March 2018.
- The claimant's role ended when the care recipient moved into a care home on 8 February 2020.
- The respondent offered the claimant domiciliary care work, which she could not accept due to distance.
- The respondent continued to advertise for live-in carers but had no vacancies.
- The claimant requested furlough but the respondent refused, citing lack of work.
- The appeal against dismissal was a rubberstamp exercise with no proper consideration.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as a care assistant at £8.10 per hour.
-
Meeting about pay
Claimant met respondent to discuss underpayment of wages.
-
Second meeting about pay
Agreed to pay claimant based on 13/15-hour day from 10 June 2019.
-
Care recipient hospitalised
HR admitted to hospital; claimant's live-in care role ended.
-
Claimant raised grievance
Grievance included lack of written particulars, holiday pay, and pension details.
-
Invitation to redundancy meeting
Respondent wrote to claimant about possible redundancy due to lack of live-in work.
-
Redundancy meeting
Claimant offered domiciliary care work but refused due to location.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Claim presented
Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, unpaid wages and holiday pay.
-
Liability hearing
Tribunal found unfair dismissal due to failure to consider furlough and rubberstamp appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy was fair, and whether the respondent had provided a written statement of employment particulars as required by law.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key reasons were:
- The respondent failed to consider furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme when the claimant requested it, even though she was eligible.
- The appeal process was a rubber-stamp exercise: the appeal decision was predetermined and did not properly consider the claimant's arguments.
The claimant was awarded total compensation of £9,377.74, broken down as:
- Compensatory award: £7,225.74
- Section 38 award (failure to provide written particulars): 2 weeks' pay (capped)
- Basic award: nil (claimant had less than 2 years' service at the effective date of dismissal for basic award purposes, but the compensatory award was calculated from the date of dismissal to the remedy hearing)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should consider all alternatives to redundancy, including furlough, especially during the pandemic, and document their reasoning.
- A genuine appeal process is essential – a rubber-stamp appeal can make an otherwise fair dismissal unfair.
- Employees with less than 2 years' service may still claim unfair dismissal if the reason is automatically unfair or if the dismissal is procedurally flawed in a way that makes it unfair.
- Employers must provide a written statement of employment particulars within two months of the start of employment; failure to do so can result in a separate award.
When a live-in care role ends: what happens next?
This case shows what can go wrong when an employer fails to properly manage a redundancy situation. The claimant had worked as a live-in care assistant for Lovingangels Care Limited since March 2018. When the person she cared for moved into a care home in February 2020, her role came to an end. The employer offered her alternative domiciliary care work, but the locations were too far away for her to accept.
Instead of looking at other options, the employer moved straight to redundancy. The claimant asked to be placed on furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which was available at the time. The employer refused, saying there was no work – even though they were still advertising for live-in carers. The tribunal found that the employer had not genuinely considered furlough as an alternative, which made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
The appeal that wasn't
The claimant appealed against her dismissal. But the appeal decision was a 'rubber-stamp' exercise – the person handling the appeal had already decided the outcome before hearing the claimant's arguments. The tribunal said this meant the appeal process was not genuine, and that failure contributed to the unfairness of the dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
Lovingangels Care could have avoided this outcome by properly considering furlough and documenting why it was or wasn't suitable. They could also have conducted a genuine appeal, listening to the claimant's concerns and reaching a fresh decision. The tribunal noted that the employer had not followed a fair process, and that was the key reason for the finding of unfair dismissal.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy procedures must be followed carefully, even in difficult circumstances. Employers should explore all alternatives, including government support schemes, before deciding to dismiss. And a fair appeal is not just a formality – it must be a genuine reconsideration of the decision. For employees, it shows that even if you have less than two years' service, you can still challenge an unfair dismissal if the employer's process is flawed.
Similar cases
Sports club managers dismissed without consultation: redundancy ruled unfair
Two joint managers of a sports club were unfairly dismissed when they were made redundant without any consultation, despite the club's dire financial situation. The tribunal also found they were owed unpaid wages and holiday pay.
Creative Manager loses unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims over redundancy
A Creative Manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims that the process was discriminatory or procedurally unfair.
Long-serving staff unfairly dismissed after redundancy process ignored own grievance policy
Three long-serving duty officers were unfairly dismissed when their employer failed to follow its own grievance policy before making them redundant. The tribunal awarded compensation limited to two months' furlough pay.
Pub manager dismissed during pandemic wins £18,000 for unpaid wages and holiday pay
A public house manager with 17 years' service was made redundant when the pub closed during COVID-19. The tribunal upheld the redundancy but awarded £17,936.55 for National Minimum Wage underpayments, notice pay, and holiday pay.