Stone Oak Facilities Management

Case Summary

Ms A Khan claimed unauthorised deductions from her wages by Stone Oak Facilities Management for the period September to December 2024. The respondent admitted owing the net sum of £1065.80, which the tribunal grossed up to £1364.00. The tribunal dismissed claims for additional compensation, interest, and compensation for failure to provide payslips.

The claim was determined in the claimant's favour by admission of the respondent, who admitted in their response that they owed the net sum of £1065.80. The tribunal grossed up this admitted net sum to £1364.00 to reflect the total judgment for unauthorised deductions from wages during the period September to December 2024.

• •Unauthorised deductions from wages
• •Failure to provide payslips
• •Request for interest on deducted amounts
• •Request for compensation for stress and inconvenience

PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 1 of 3 August 2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms A Khan Respondent: Stone Oak Facilities Management Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal On: 27 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge French Appearances For the claimant: In person For the respondent: No attendance JUDGMENT 1. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period September to December 2024. 2. The respondent shall pay the claimant £1364.00, which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. SUMMARY REASONS 1. The claim was before me for a final hearing on 26 March 2026. The respondent did not attend, and these reasons are provided on the Tribunal’s own motion in order for them to understand the decision. 2. The respondent did not attend, and the Tribunal proceeded in their absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal clerk called the telephone number of the person with conduct of the matter in the respondent company, and they informed the Tribunal that they were in Italy. They stated that they were aware of the hearing and could not attend. The clerk invited the respondent to join by telephone but was told this was not possible. The clerk also invited the respondent to send an email to the Tribunal explaining the situation, however despite giving a further 30 minutes, this was not provided. PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 2 of 3 August 2020 3. I was satisfied the respondent was aware of the hearing because they confirmed this to the clerk. The respondent had also sent to the Tribunal on 6 October 2025 its disclosure in the matter in which they referred to the final hearing notice and directions set therein. The respondent had t…