Deductions of wages claim

[Aymz]

Hello, hoping someone can shed a little light on something for me.

My brother in law is writing to his previous employer after they made some (unlawful) deductions from his final wages (which were paid late anyway). One issue is they took a payment of 169 to cover personal mileage (he used van [with agreement although they now deny this]) which only amounts to £40.88. When he went back and told them this, they then came out and said it was for wear and tear as well. I believe that they cannot deduct for fair wear and tear - am I right in this? Vehicle was returned in condition it was given, neither have they mentioned any further damage in the two weeks since he has left.

Secondly, if he does not get paid what he is owed (for the above and other deductions) does he have to take it through an employment tribunal or can he go straight to small claims? I've heard that it is a) more difficult through an ET and b) decidedly more expensive.

Any advice helpful, thanks

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Is there anything in his contract that said about deductions for personal usage of company van or the usage of company van at all? I doubt they will be and it be for the employer to show the amount represented actual loss, which be difficult for them to prove, especially the amount for wear and tear as that's ridiculous!

Tell him to not sent the letter just yet as we need to make sure its worded right!

I'll have more questions in the morning for you as well that will need answers from you and your BIL!

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Right i have some further questions for you.

How long has he worked for the employer?

Did he resign of was he dismissed? If so what was the date and reason for resignation/dismissal?

If he resigned, did he work his notice period as per his contract?

You said they haven't mentioned further damage in the 2 weeks since, had they alleged he had damaged the vehicle in anyway or was it just a case of claiming wear and tear? If they alleged he had damaged it, what was the alleged damage?

What was the £40.88 for, petrol? How was this calculated? Does he have receipts for this?

What was he using the Company Vehicle for and on what date(s)?

I may have further questions later and others that join the thread may have questions too. We need to ask such questions in order to give you the best advise we can, so the more you can answer the better really!

[Aymz]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Right i have some further questions for you.

How long has he worked for the employer? He worked there from 27/03 to 17/07

Did he resign of was he dismissed? If so what was the date and reason for resignation/dismissal He resigned as he had found a better suited job

If he resigned, did he work his notice period as per his contract? Yes he worked his notice period, there is no dispute over this

You said they haven't mentioned further damage in the 2 weeks since, had they alleged he had damaged the vehicle in anyway or was it just a case of claiming wear and tear? If they alleged he had damaged it, what was the alleged damage? They havent alleged any damage, just told hi they had deducted for wear and tear

What was the £40.88 for, petrol? How was this calculated? Does he have receipts for this? His employer agreed he could use the van to travel to coventry for the weekend for personal use, and his last job (he's an engineer) was working in Reading as his employer had given it him as it was easier to get to Coventry. £40.88 calculated from 0.14p per mile Reading to Coventry and back again (192 miles) and he's even put in an extra 100 miles for driving around in Coventry so total of 292 miles at 0.14p per mile (advisory fuel rates for his vehicle class)

What was he using the Company Vehicle for and on what date(s)?he went to visit family in coventry, i do not know dates but it would have been friday to sunday.

I may have further questions later and others that join the thread may have questions too. We need to ask such questions in order to give you the best advise we can, so the more you can answer the better really!

hope this helps, thanks.

[ostell]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Did he also get paid holiday pay accrued? Some firms seem to "forget" this.

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

hope this helps, thanks.

OK since hes worked there less than 2 years he can not take it to tribunal. He would have to issue a claim for breach of contract to the small claims courts for the amount still owed to him in wages, including accrued holiday pay! It would be for the employer to proof the cost of the wear and tear and i doubt it would cost 128.12 in wear and tear for a total of 292 miles (i used to work in the car motor industry) - They could replace the front pads and discs for that or even 4 new tires (cheap ones) or an section of exhaust or 2 sections! So no way they can proof wear and tear for a journey of 292 miles amounted to £128.12

He needs to send a letter before action advising them of the above and that is all monies outstanding are not repaid within 7 days that he will issue legal proceedings via the small claims court for breach of contract. Also point out that is a breach of section 13 of the employment rights act 1996 to make unauthorized deductions from an employees wage without either their written consent and that he never consented to such deduction nor is there a term in his contract that allows for such deductions to be made for wear and tear of vehicle!


However the problem hes going to face is proof he had consent, so did he have it in writing, or have a witness to the conversation or any other employees he spoke to that he told the boss had given consent?

[Aymz]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

OK since hes worked there less than 2 years he can not take it to tribunal. He would have to issue a claim for breach of contract to the small claims courts for the amount still owed to him in wages, including accrued holiday pay! It would be for the employer to proof the cost of the wear and tear and i doubt it would cost 128.12 in wear and tear for a total of 292 miles (i used to work in the car motor industry) - They could replace the front pads and discs for that or even 4 new tires (cheap ones) or an section of exhaust or 2 sections! So no way they can proof wear and tear for a journey of 292 miles amounted to £128.12

He needs to send a letter before action advising them of the above and that is all monies outstanding are not repaid within 7 days that he will issue legal proceedings via the small claims court for breach of contract. Also point out that is a breach of section 13 of the employment rights act 1996 to make unauthorized deductions from an employees wage without either their written consent and that he never consented to such deduction nor is there a term in his contract that allows for such deductions to be made for wear and tear of vehicle!


However the problem hes going to face is proof he had consent, so did he have it in writing, or have a witness to the conversation or any other employees he spoke to that he told the boss had given consent?

Thanks for the response - answered my question perfectly, and always good to know about length of service and going through ET! I will let him know and get him to send that letter.

It is going to be a bit of a 'i said, he said' in terms of taking the van. Any other witnesses would back up the company as they are predominantly family run I believe...

Thank you again

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Thanks for the response - answered my question perfectly, and always good to know about length of service and going through ET! I will let him know and get him to send that letter.

It is going to be a bit of a 'i said, he said' in terms of taking the van. Any other witnesses would back up the company as they are predominantly family run I believe...

Thank you again

Yes it is going to be "I said, he said" - However if he took the van without consent on a weekend, why didn't the boss report it as stolen when it wasn't in the yard, or why not ring him asking him to bring the van back to the yard, so clearly the boss knew where the van was at all times!

[Aymz]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Yes it is going to be "I said, he said" - However if he took the van without consent on a weekend, why didn't the boss report it as stolen when it wasn't in the yard, or why not ring him asking him to bring the van back to the yard, so clearly the boss knew where the van was at all times!

Good point!

[joni]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Thanks for the response - answered my question perfectly, and always good to know about length of service and going through ET! I will let him know and get him to send that letter.

It is going to be a bit of a 'i said, he said' in terms of taking the van. Any other witnesses would back up the company as they are predominantly family run I believe...

Thank you again

Just to be clear there is no length of service requirement to bring a claim for breach of contract or unlawful deductions of wages. The two year service rule relates to a claim of unfair dismissal. Therefore your friend does not need to be employed for 2 years before he can bring a claim. He can bring a claim. He would first however need to go through early conciliation with ACAS and if ACAS were unable to resolve the matter he could issue a tribunal claim.

An employer can not make any deduction from an employees wages unless the employee has agreed to this in writing before any deduction has been made. (there are some exemptions to this but none of which appear to apply here).

if there was no term in the contract of employment (or contractual employee handbook) to deduct sum for damage and or petrol then the company can not make any deductions of those sums at all and would have to refund these to the employee. there is no defence such as set off for such a claim.

Your fiend does not need to prove he had the employers consent to drive the vehicle as this is irrelevant to the issue of whether his employer was authorised to deduced sums from his wages by way of written agreement. The reality is even if your friend owes money for petrol the employer can not deduct this from his wages. he can therefore claim back the petrol money which he accepts he owes. (This would probably be set off in a breach of contract claim due to the way damages are assessed)

I would advised first to write to the employee raising a grievance - if the employer failed to deal with this then the tribunal could increase compensation by up to 25% (so i would not chase a response just ensure you have proof of postage)
At the same time contact ACAS and go through early conciliation - this is free of charge
Lastly, you would need to issue an ET claim for the total sum of deductions included the amount for petrol, there is a charge for this, however this will be refunded by the employer upon completion of a successful claim.
There is however a 3 month time limit to bring a claim to the ET which runs from the date the last payment was due or from the date the last deduction was made. (if you go through Early Conciliation the time limit will be extended)

hope this helps

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Just to be clear there is no length of service requirement to bring a claim for breach of contract or unlawful deductions of wages. The two year service rule relates to a claim of unfair dismissal. Therefore your friend does not need to be employed for 2 years before he can bring a claim. He can bring a claim. He would first however need to go through early conciliation with ACAS and if ACAS were unable to resolve the matter he could issue a tribunal claim.

An employer can not make any deduction from an employees wages unless the employee has agreed to this in writing before any deduction has been made. (there are some exemptions to this but none of which appear to apply here).

if there was no term in the contract of employment (or contractual employee handbook) to deduct sum for damage and or petrol then the company can not make any deductions of those sums at all and would have to refund these to the employee. there is no defence such as set off for such a claim.

Your fiend does not need to prove he had the employers consent to drive the vehicle as this is irrelevant to the issue of whether his employer was authorised to deduced sums from his wages by way of written agreement. The reality is even if your friend owes money for petrol the employer can not deduct this from his wages. he can therefore claim back the petrol money which he accepts he owes. (This would probably be set off in a breach of contract claim due to the way damages are assessed)

I would advised first to write to the employee raising a grievance - if the employer failed to deal with this then the tribunal could increase compensation by up to 25% (so i would not chase a response just ensure you have proof of postage)
At the same time contact ACAS and go through early conciliation - this is free of charge
Lastly, you would need to issue an ET claim for the total sum of deductions included the amount for petrol, there is a charge for this, however this will be refunded by the employer upon completion of a successful claim.
There is however a 3 month time limit to bring a claim to the ET which runs from the date the last payment was due or from the date the last deduction was made. (if you go through Early Conciliation the time limit will be extended)

hope this helps

Without getting in to argument about length of service, the tribunal route is the most costly in regards to fees and lengthiest route to take in terms of time it takes, where as the small claims court is cheaper and doesn't require the need for ACAS conciliation either!

As per money paid per petrol usage, if the court is satisfied a verbal agreement existed allowing the OP BIL private use of the van then it is likely therefore that a verbal contract in addition to the contract of employment exist where it was agreed the cost of petrol would be paid for and likely deducted from the employees wage. It would be seen as a separate contract allowing the deduction of the petrol. Plus the Employer would be entitled to claim the petrol cost as a loss - So no point arguing at all about the £40 odd that was paid for petrol usage!!

And yes the OPs BIL would need to proof he had consent to use the van as he is the claimant and therefore onus of proof lies on him to proof the employer was in breach of the contract!

[joni]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

Without getting in to argument about length of service, the tribunal route is the most costly in regards to fees and lengthiest route to take in terms of time it takes, where as the small claims court is cheaper and doesn't require the need for ACAS conciliation either!

As per money paid per petrol usage, if the court is satisfied a verbal agreement existed allowing the OP BIL private use of the van then it is likely therefore that a verbal contract in addition to the contract of employment exist where it was agreed the cost of petrol would be paid for and likely deducted from the employees wage. It would be seen as a separate contract allowing the deduction of the petrol. Plus the Employer would be entitled to claim the petrol cost as a loss - So no point arguing at all about the £40 odd that was paid for petrol usage!!

And yes the OPs BIL would need to proof he had consent to use the van as he is the claimant and therefore onus of proof lies on him to proof the employer was in breach of the contract!

I agree its pointless arguing about the length of service requirement as there is none for unlawful deduction of wages claims.

i agree it may well be a cheaper option to go to the small claims route, however as both routes will result in fees / cost being repaid by the employer if the claim is sucessful then this is somewhat of a mute point.

My point was simply that because an unlawful deduction of wages is strict liability all sums deducted without a term allowing the deduction to be made will have to be paid back. Hence he does not need to show he had consent to use the van as consent to use the van is irrelevant to a claim of unlawful deduction of wages. (unlawful deduction of wages is not a claim for breach of contract so not sure why you state he has to show the employer was in breach of the contract) For example, the employer can not say he is entitled to deduct the cost of petrol from the wage as the employee 'understood' he had to pay for petrol or that the employee should pay for the petrol that he used. The issue is whether the employer paid the claimant less than his contract specified he should be paid. if so, that will be an unlawful deduction, unless the deduction is exempt, which it is not.

Also if he claimed breach of contract either in the ET or the county court the employer could counter claim the cost of petrol and or any other cost/losses to justify the deduction i.e the vehicle was returned with a scratch or that there was a verbal agreement to pay at least the cost of petrol. Or the vehicle was used without permission so they deducted a reasonable sum for rental - which is where he would have to prove he had consent to use the vehicle free of charge and where any discussions regarding petrol will be relevant.

However, such a defence is not open to an employer if a claim for unlawful deduction in the ET (and not breach of contract) is pursued - that was the point i was making.

£40 to some is quite a substantial sum. Furthermore, why pay for something if the employment law says you can get it back because your employer was not entitled to take it from you? its this the same as some people with debts who avoid paying them because the creditor failed to comply with their specific requirement under the CCA?

Lastly, the service ACAS provides is free of charge and if they are able to settle the claim without the need for court or ET proceedings then all the better (and cheaper). if not, he has the option of either going to the county court or ET, which is of course a matter for him.

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

I agree its pointless arguing about the length of service requirement as there is none for unlawful deduction of wages claims.

i agree it may well be a cheaper option to go to the small claims route, however as both routes will result in fees / cost being repaid by the employer if the claim is sucessful then this is somewhat of a mute point.

My point was simply that because an unlawful deduction of wages is strict liability all sums deducted without a term allowing the deduction to be made will have to be paid back. Hence he does not need to show he had consent to use the van as consent to use the van is irrelevant to a claim of unlawful deduction of wages. (unlawful deduction of wages is not a claim for breach of contract so not sure why you state he has to show the employer was in breach of the contract) For example, the employer can not say he is entitled to deduct the cost of petrol from the wage as the employee 'understood' he had to pay for petrol or that the employee should pay for the petrol that he used. The issue is whether the employer paid the claimant less than his contract specified he should be paid. if so, that will be an unlawful deduction, unless the deduction is exempt, which it is not.

Also if he claimed breach of contract either in the ET or the county court the employer could counter claim the cost of petrol and or any other cost/losses to justify the deduction i.e the vehicle was returned with a scratch or that there was a verbal agreement to pay at least the cost of petrol. Or the vehicle was used without permission so they deducted a reasonable sum for rental - which is where he would have to prove he had consent to use the vehicle free of charge and where any discussions regarding petrol will be relevant.

However, such a defence is not open to an employer if a claim for unlawful deduction in the ET (and not breach of contract) is pursued - that was the point i was making.

£40 to some is quite a substantial sum. Furthermore, why pay for something if the employment law says you can get it back because your employer was not entitled to take it from you? its this the same as some people with debts who avoid paying them because the creditor failed to comply with their specific requirement under the CCA?

Lastly, the service ACAS provides is free of charge and if they are able to settle the claim without the need for court or ET proceedings then all the better (and cheaper). if not, he has the option of either going to the county court or ET, which is of course a matter for him.

Service ACAS provides is free, but it lengthens the process considerably hence why Small Claims is the quicker route, not to mention the fact that most employers simply draw out the whole process and only offer to settle a week or days before tribunal hearing, purely in the hope the claimant will have doubts about winning and therefore withdraw!

Sorry but, unlawful deductions are a breach of contract. Rate of pay is a contractual term, if you pay less than what is owed to the employer based on their hours work and contractual remuneration (rate per hour) that's a breach of contract, unless there's a separate term or contract allowing for said deduction! Just because its a breach of statutory law under section 13 ERA 1996 it doesn't change the fact its also a breach of contract. Also you can only claim a breach of contract when taking unauthorized deduction cases to small claims and use section 13 to support your claim, you can not make a claim for unauthorised deductions par se to small claims, it has to be via a breach of contract claim!

Also a verbal agreement is a separate contract in addition to the employment contract, so the employer would have to prove such verbal agreement existed and therefore the deduction of the money for petrol and wear and tear would amount to an authorised deduction - doing such is helped by the fact the OP BIL admits agreement to pay petrol and to using the van. But as the amount of wear and tear was never part of said verbal agreement, hence the dispute, it would be would be difficult for the employer to convince a small claims court judge that wear and tear amounted to such high sum of money for so little mileage anyway, and to be frank no reasonable man would ever agree to pay that amount in wear and tear. So the only amount that can be claimed as unauthorised deductions via breach contract claim is the difference between the amount for petrol and the total deducted i.e. £128.12 is all that can be claimed as unauthorized deductions.

The employer would have to proof that their was a rental charge, but hes already stated it was for wear and tear, so he would have to proof that the OPs mileage during private use amounted to a loss of £128.12 in wear and tear - Impossible to prove as it wouldn't add up to that much in wear and tear!

The employer wouldn't need to counter claim at a tribunal for unauthorized deductions claim but merely argue that he was entitled to deduct the whole amount under the separate verbal agreement, evidence such agreement existed would be the fact the OP has admitted to agreeing to pay for the petrol, therefore its likely the ET will conclude he agreed to pay wear and tear too! At small claims court the Employer would have to proof such term regarding the wear and tear existed and actual loss incurred due to wear and tear due to the higher burden of proof required at small claims court compared to lower burden of proof required at ET!

Just because the agreement was verbal, it doesn't mean it didnt exist or that it was not a separate contract in addition to the employment contract, as that is precisely what the verbal agreement is. A contract doesn't have to be in writing to be binding, it can be verbal and still be binding, the difficulty is proofing the Verbal contracted existed, the OP has to proof said verbal agreement existed, and the employer making deductions proves it does exist, or otherwise he will be deemed to have taken the van without consent and likely loose the claim as a result!

Also this dispute isn't about the deductions being authorised or not as part of what was deducted was authorised. so its the amount of the authorised deduction that is being disputed not whether the deduction par se was authorised. A says £40.88 was authorised for petrol but there was no verbal agreement on wear and tear, yet B says there was a verbal agreement for both petrol and wear and tear - That makes this a contractual dispute and the small claims court would be the best route as the burden of proof for the additional amount deducted falls on the employer to prove they were contractually entitled to it! its also not a employment contract dispute as the dispute lies in in what was agreed in the separate verbal contract for private use of the van outside of work hours, so its a private contract between two parties! hence why the OP BIL should claim for breach of contract and only claim the sum of £128.12 rather than the full amount deducted as the petrol amount isn't disputed!

Yes costs are awarded to the winner of the claim at small claims court 100% of the time, but not always is that the case at tribunal where people have ended up paying their own costs even though they won - So not so much of a mute point after all!

So is unauthorised deductions claim a breach of contract claim - Yes it is if you take it through small claims its also a breach of contract claim at ET too, though as section 13 gives statutory protection its not treated as breach of contract but breach of statutory tort that only a tribunal has jurisdiction over!

Anyway pointless arguing, as OP made clear they favored the Small Claims route in their very first post.

[joni]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

I think you misunderstand me. If an employer fails to pay the contractual wages then yes this is a breach of the employees contract. This we can agree upon. However, my point is that this can be pursued / claimed in two ways in the Tribunal. 1. Unlawful Deduction or 2. breach of contract (and only as a breach of contract in small claims).

So, No, an unlawful deduction 'claim' is not a 'claim' for breach of contract. But any unlawful deduction will be a breach of the employees contract and therefore can, in the alternative, be claimed as such at either venue.

My point being that it is far easier to win on a case of Unlawful deductions as any deduction not exempt or agreed is unlawful and it is on of strike liability.

Also there is no defence of set off. The employer may well wish to argue he had a verbal agreement that the employee pay the petrol but such an agreement is not a agreement that the employer has permission to 'deduct' that payment from the employees wage. it is only an agreement that the employee will pay the cost of petrol not an agreement as to the source of that payment.

Furthermore, you suggest that a verbal agreement is sufficient to authorise a deduction in wages, however it is clear from s.13 ERA 1996 requires that any agreement has to be 'in writing' or if the contract of employment is part verbal and part written, the employee has to be notified in 'writing' of the effect of the terms (that allows the deduction to be made). So the 'verbal agreement' in this case will not be valid for a claim of unlawful deduction.

The ACAS procedure can be as long or as short as the person wishes and can be a simple call to the employer setting out the claims and asking for a sum of compensation to settle.

From my experience, Wage Act claims (unlawful deduction claims) are fast tracked therefore the claim is listed for a hearing by the Tribunal upon receipt of the ET1 (Claim form) so there may not be as much of a lengthy process as you imagine.

Also in the Tribunal claimant's are entitled to their fees back upon a successful claim. (Cost and fees are not the same thing).

The benefit of the Tribunal route is that 1. if the employer fails to deal with the employees grievance then the tribunal can increase the compensation by up to 25%. 2. if the OP BIL was not provided with a contract of employment, he will be awarded up to 4 weeks pay as compensation. so the potential value of what seems like a low value claim more than doubles in value in the Tribunal, whereas he would have difficulties getting all the sums deducted from the small claims court.

I do not consider our exchange to be an argument. Why can't two people exchange different points of views on a subject matter without it being seen as an argument? The OP BIL is should be given both views and he can then make an informed decision on which route is best for him.

[teaboy2]

Re: Deductions of wages claim

I think you misunderstand me. If an employer fails to pay the contractual wages then yes this is a breach of the employees contract. This we can agree upon. However, my point is that this can be pursued / claimed in two ways in the Tribunal. 1. Unlawful Deduction or 2. breach of contract (and only as a breach of contract in small claims).

Agreed, but ET would have lesser burden of proof on the employer, to that of small claims, where the burden off proof on the employer would be greater in regards to proving not only that their was a term in the verbal agreement for cost of wear and tear, but that said cost representing accurate loss due to wear and tear! An employment tribunal will simply see that as OP BIL agreed to pay petrol then its likely their was a contractual term in the verbal agreement to cover additional cost of wear and tear, but the tribunal can not decide the cost of that wear and tear or the fairness of the amount as contractual law par ser is outside of the tribunals jurisdiction!

So, No, an unlawful deduction 'claim' is not a 'claim' for breach of contract. But any unlawful deduction will be a breach of the employees contract and therefore can, in the alternative, be claimed as such at either venue.

Well it can not treated by ET as a breach of contract due to unauthorised deductions being a statutory tort under employment rights act 1996 (unless you claim brweach of contract under the separate verbal contract arguing it was in addition to your employment contract and not a private contract. However it can be claimed as breach of contract via small claims as small claims has no jurisdiction deciding if it was an unauthorised deduction or not under satutory tort where only the ET has jurisdiction. Therefore small claims decides whether there was a term in place that allowed the employer to take such money from the employee without consent or whether there was no such term. So the small claims court will decide based on the validity of the verbal agreement and on whether the employer can proof the terms for wear and tear existed in the verbal agreement and that the amount of £128 is an accurate representation of cost reference wear and tear on the van during the time the employee used it for his private use. Which would be impossible for the employer to prove and therefore even if such term for wear and tear existed it would be deemed an unfair term (as amouint would be unrelistic representation of cost incurred for wear and tear based on employees private usage) and therefore invalid and the OP BIL will win his claim for £128.

My point being that it is far easier to win on a case of Unlawful deductions as any deduction not exempt or agreed is unlawful and it is on of strike liability.

Yes i understand that, but my point is the verbal agreement was a secondary and separate contract for private usage, it was a one off private verbal contract, therefore it doesn't form part of the OP's employment contract as such can not be heard by a tribunal! Therefore the deductions can not be treated as unauthorised dedcutions as they were in part (petrol) authorised and deducted it from his wages was the agreed payment method. Its the amount that's being disputed here not the authorisation to deduct!

Also there is no defence of set off. The employer may well wish to argue he had a verbal agreement that the employee pay the petrol but such an agreement is not a agreement that the employer has permission to 'deduct' that payment from the employees wage. it is only an agreement that the employee will pay the cost of petrol not an agreement as to the source of that payment.

But as its a verbal agreement the method of payment is likely to have been agreed by means of deduction from the employees wage! It be no different to any other agreement to make deductions from the employers wage, such as cost of repair for damages to employers property/stock, or repayment of an over payment of wages!

Furthermore, you suggest that a verbal agreement is sufficient to authorise a deduction in wages, however it is clear from s.13 ERA 1996 requires that any agreement has to be 'in writing' or if the contract of employment is part verbal and part written, the employee has to be notified in 'writing' of the effect of the terms (that allows the deduction to be made). So the 'verbal agreement' in this case will not be valid for a claim of unlawful deduction.

I said the verbal agreement is a separate contract and a private contract between private parties, it was a one off agreement that covered the period in which the employee used the van for private use only, it was not part of his employment terms or contract! If you worked in a shop and went to buy something from the shop, but didn't have any cash on you and the employer said, if you want the item i can deduct it from your wage instead, by then taking the item you enter in to a one of private contract where method of payment was to deduct cost of item from your wage instead! This is no different, the employer wanted to effectively hire the van for private use the employer verbally agreed he could on condition the cost be deducted from his wages. Therefore said agreement is not in addition to his employment terms, its a separate one of and unique agreement, it is not subject to employment law or to the jurisdiction of ET. Its is subject to contract law, just like if you loaned your car to a mate on condition he paid for petrol and small amount towards wear and tear! In order for such verbal agreement to be subject to employment law, it most state in writing that the terms of the agreement are in addition to the terms of employment contract, if it doesn't then its not consider part of his terms of employment! Hence why a verbal contract is separate to that of his employment contract and therefore a private contract, that does not form part of his employment and is not subjected to employment law but falls under contract law instead.

The ACAS procedure can be as long or as short as the person wishes and can be a simple call to the employer setting out the claims and asking for a sum of compensation to settle.

Thats true, but we all no that employers doe try and draw things out for as long as possible, especially those that have no respect for the law. Anyway, this isn't an employment dispute, or unauthorised deductions dispute, as the agreement for the use of the van was a separete contract to his employment terms/contract! Also at small claims they do not have as much freedom to draw the process out once the claim is issued as their is set time frames to acknowledging the claim, exchanging documents, submitting defence etc.

From my experience, Wage Act claims (unlawful deduction claims) are fast tracked therefore the claim is listed for a hearing by the Tribunal upon receipt of the ET1 (Claim form) so there may not be as much of a lengthy process as you imagine. I don't imaging anything.

Yes they can be fast tracked, but this is not your straight forward unauthorised deduction of wages claim its a dispute based on what was agreed payment amount for use of work van under a contract that was separate from that of the employees employment and agreed method of payment was clearly by deducting it from the employees pay so the deduction was authorised, its the amount agreed under the separate contract that is being disputed! He would loose the claim for unauthorised deductions at ET as they can not decide on contractual agreements that do not form part of the employees contract of employment or terms of employment!

Also in the Tribunal claimant's are entitled to their fees back upon a successful claim. (Cost and fees are not the same thing).

They are not automatically entitled to their fees/cost back it is up to the tribunal to decided whether to order the losing party to pay their winning parties fees and cost. Where in small claims the winning parties fees and legal costs are automatically awarded against the losing party!

The benefit of the Tribunal route is that 1. if the employer fails to deal with the employees grievance then the tribunal can increase the compensation by up to 25%. 2. if the OP BIL was not provided with a contract of employment, he will be awarded up to 4 weeks pay as compensation. so the potential value of what seems like a low value claim more than doubles in value in the Tribunal, whereas he would have difficulties getting all the sums deducted from the small claims court.

True, but this is not a employment dispute, its a contract dispute where the contract in queations is separate from that of the OP BIL contract of employment! The tribunal doesn't have jurisdiction over contracts that do not form part of an employees employment contract! So the claim would be thrown out at Tribunal

I do not consider our exchange to be an argument. Why can't two people exchange different points of views on a subject matter without it being seen as an argument? The OP BIL is should be given both views and he can then make an informed decision on which route is best for him.

I agree with your last point too. Most however see such debates as arguments, where i see them as debates so i assumed you treated it as an argument too like the majority of others have in the past.

Basically my point is, because the verbal agreement can not be tied into the employment contract due to lack of written statement of "these terms are in addition to the contract of employment", then it is a completely separately contract between to private parties and not a contract between employer and employee! It be no different to you or i going to the same company and asking if we could hire or the van, the only difference would be the terms regarding payment, but that alone doesn't change the fact the agreement is a private agreement and basically a rental/hire agreement!