A Hove man is taking the Pensions Regulator to an employment tribunal, claiming he was forced out of his job because of age discrimination.
Tim Hodges, 54, worked for the Brighton-based government body from November 2019 until May last year, when he resigned, having been signed off with stress eight weeks earlier.
He says he did not receive the same support younger members of staff in similar situations received, and had no faith in its HR procedures.
He lodged a claim in August, but the regulator did not respond by the October deadline, risking Mr Hodges being automatically awarded damages.
Following an interim hearing in January, an employment tribunal judge said its explanation for not responding was “unimpressive”.
However, Judge Daniel Dyal said the delay was not long, and as the Pensions Regulator’s proposed defence has some merit, he said it should proceed to a full hearing in July.
The regulator’s head of partnering and service people team Claire Shenton submitted a witness statement to the hearing saying she had forgotten to respond because of pressures at work, including dealing with strike action, and a personal bereavement.
However, Mr Hodges provided emails which showed she had been reminded of his claim more than once.
In his ruling, Judge Dyal said: “Ms Shenton [says] she simply forgot about the claim and did not deal with it … this was nothing more than a simple mistake albeit one she finds professional embarrassing.
“The claimant, however, believes that in fact the HR department did not respond to his claim because it is trying to suppress it and stop it from being seen by more senior people such as ministers.”
He said he didn’t accept Ms Shenton was “entirely honest” and “the full truth came out bit by bit when she was cross-examined by the claimant and when I asked her some questions”.
However, he says Mr Hodges assertion that the failure to respond was done deliberately to suppress the case was “irrational”, adding: “Failing to respond just makes things worse. It means the case is more likely to succeed and more likely that there will be something to pay in compensation.”
He concluded that the reason for the delay was a series of mistakes, and that the only prejudice to Mr Hodges in allowing the case to proceed was a slight delay.
He added: “[The Pension Regulator’s] defence is arguable, and has some merit.
“Reading the claim form it appears [Mr Hodges] resigned at an unusually early stage of the sickness procedure.
“He contends more support should have been given and says other younger members of staff were given more support.
“Putting that together with [The Pension Regulator’s] proposed response, it seems to me that there are real factual issues over how the claimant was treated, how that compared to the treatment of as yet unnamed comparators, and if less favourably, whether the reason or part of the reason was age.
“In my view, all of these are arguable points.”
A spokesperson for The Pensions Regulator said: “We do not comment on active employment tribunal proceedings.”
The full hearing is scheduled to take place in July.
Editor’s note: Tim Hodges also writes Albion reports for Brighton and Hove News
At least Ms Shenton did not plead “senior moment” … note : allowed to make this joke as press guidelines prevent knowing the age of the witness