Husiev v Prompt Men Services Ltd (formerly V K Removals Ltd)

Case Summary

Mr Husiev brought claims for unlawful wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, failure to provide written particulars, and payslip/P45 irregularities against his former employer Prompt Men Services Ltd. The tribunal found the first four complaints well-founded and awarded a total of £15,766.29, dismissing the pension auto-enrolment claim as outside its jurisdiction.

The tribunal found the claimant's complaints of unlawful wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars to be well-founded and awarded compensation accordingly. The pension auto-enrolment claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as it falls within the Pensions Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

• •unlawful deductions from wages
• •unpaid statutory holiday pay
• •failure to provide statutory written particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
• •payslip and P45 irregularities
• •failure to auto-enrol into workplace pension scheme

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Volodymyr Husiev Respondent: Prompt Men Services Ltd (formerly V K Removals Ltd) Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 13 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Comfort Representatives For the Claimant: In Person For the Respondent: Mr Vaszil Kuklisin (Company Director) JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant’s complaint of unlawful deductions from wages is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £9,200.00. 2. The Claimant’s complaint of unpaid statutory holiday pay is well-founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £4,964.61. 3. The Claimant’s complaint of failure to provide statutory written particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The Tribunal makes an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £1,601.68. 4. The Claimant’s complaint concerning payslip and P45 irregularities is well-founded, but the Tribunal makes no separate financial award, all relevant sums having been addressed through other heads of claim. 5. The Claimant’s claim regarding the Respondent’s failure to auto-enrol him into a workplace pension scheme is dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. Any such complaint lies within the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman. 2 6. The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the total sum of: £15,766.29 (Fifteen thousand seven hundred and sixty-six pounds and twenty-nine pence) (Note The sums awarded are gross. Any liability for income tax or National Insurance contributions rests with the Claimant.) Employment Judge Comfort Dated: 21 April 2026 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is p…