Tribunal finds support services company withheld guaranteed pay and fabricated documents to mislead the Home Office. A care worker has been awarded more than £28,000 after a tribunal found his employer “abused” the skilled worker visa sponsorship system.
The London East tribunal heard that Metropolitan Care Services (MCS) sponsored Mr Patel – who is originally from India – to work in England as a care worker for 45 hours per week, and “created a number of false documents” to suggest he had agreed to working fewer hours.
Employment judge Spencer concluded that these documents were intended to “mislead” the Home Office’s sponsor compliance team, and described MCS’s evidence as “wholly implausible”. Care worker awarded £28k after employer ‘abused’ visa sponsorship system
Tribunal finds support services company withheld guaranteed pay and fabricated documents to mislead the Home Office
A care worker has been awarded more than £28,000 after a tribunal found his employer “abused” the skilled worker visa sponsorship system.
The London East tribunal heard that Metropolitan Care Services (MCS) sponsored Mr Patel – who is originally from India – to work in England as a care worker for 45 hours per week, and “created a number of false documents” to suggest he had agreed to working fewer hours.
Employment judge Spencer concluded that these documents were intended to “mislead” the Home Office’s sponsor compliance team, and described MCS’s evidence as “wholly implausible”.
Judge Spencer described rotas submitted less than two working days before the resumed tribunal hearing as “a work of fiction”.
The tribunal upheld all four claims of unpaid wages, notice pay, holiday entitlement and employment documents, and awarded Patel £28,123 – including £21,030 in unpaid wages and £4,416 in holiday pay.
Background
MCS obtained Patel’s certificate of sponsorship in December 2022, allowing him to apply to move from India to the UK under a skilled worker visa.
He began working for MCS as a care worker in April. His certificate of sponsorship and employment contract provided for at least 45 hours’ work a week and an annual salary of £25,600.
However, the tribunal heard that Patel was regularly given fewer hours and paid only for the work provided.
According to registered manager Ms Siakpere’s evidence to the tribunal, Patel asked to reduce his working week from 45 to 37.5 hours because he was “tired” and signed a revised contract. The tribunal said that it “seemed unlikely” Patel would ask for this.
It similarly found that messages sent the following month by Patel, asking for her to “give [him] the same hours [he] used to do” as the shortfall had “taken a toll on [his] financial circumstances”, were “inconsistent” with someone who had not only “asked for a reduction in hours” but also “signed a contract” to reduce them.
MCS then told Patel his hours would remain reduced until it found another client.
His hours later fell to 10 or 11 a week during parts of 2023 and ranged from 13 to 25 hours a week throughout 2024.
Following a compliance visit in September 2024, UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) suspended the company’s sponsor licence because it had failed to provide sponsored workers with the hours and salaries specified in their sponsorship documents.
UKVI also examined four other sponsored workers whom the company claimed had requested the same reduction in hours.
The licence was restored in November 2024 after the company provided further explanations and promised to compensate workers for salary shortfalls.
In December 2024, after Patel missed two visits to a vulnerable service user, the company invited him to a disciplinary hearing over “concerns of gross misconduct and neglect”, as well as alleged lateness and “fraudulent activity”.
Patel said he did not receive the invitation. The company said the meeting was held in his absence on 3 January 2025 and the decision was made to dismiss him.
He was dismissed without notice three days later. The dismissal letter did not mention the disciplinary hearing, his failure to attend it or any right of appeal.
Less than two working days before the resumed tribunal hearing in June 2026, the company submitted what it claimed were Patel’s genuine timesheets.
Judge’s comments
Spencer said neither Patel nor the company’s witnesses had been “wholly honest”, but preferred Patel’s evidence on most of the disputed issues.
The judge described the rotas submitted shortly before the resumed hearing as “a work of fiction”. The tribunal found the documents falsely suggested Patel had been offered his guaranteed hours but repeatedly failed to work them.
Spencer also found that “a significant number” of documents bearing Patel’s purported signatures had been fabricated. These included a second contract, supervision records and appraisals.
She said the company had “abused” the sponsorship system, and that she was””surprised” there was no documentary evidence to support Siakpere’s account that Patel had asked for reduced hours or missed a quarter of his shifts without challenge.
It found the real reason for Patel’s dismissal was that the company was unable to find him sufficient work, rather than genuine gross misconduct.
Because the tribunal ruled that the missed shifts did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract, the company was in breach when it dismissed Patel without notice.
The tribunal also rejected the company’s argument that Patel was on a fixed-term contract running until 2026, finding the certificate of sponsorship “is not a contractual document”, and awarded him one week’s pay in lieu of notice.
