HMRC Worker Ordered to Pay £20,000 After refusing Return to Office,Blames Union
A former HMRC employee is facing a substantial financial penalty after a tribunal ruled against his claim of disability discrimination,finding his legal action to be “vexatious.” Martin Bentley, 67, has been ordered to repay £20,000 in legal costs to the tax authority adn alleges his union, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), encouraged him to pursue a losing case.
Bentley, who retired in September 2024, successfully worked from home following the relaxation of COVID-19 lockdown rules, despite an Occupational Health report indicating he was medically fit to return to the office. The tribunal heard he was “prepared to use whatever means he could” to avoid in-person work and maintain his remote arrangement. He is now required to pay approximately £240 per month until the full amount is settled.
The dispute began in January 2022, when HMRC announced an expected return to the office for all staff. Bentley refused, initially citing transportation issues, but later stating he walked to work after being offered taxi services. By March 2022,the situation reached an “impasse,” with his line manager reporting difficulties in managing his work remotely.
Despite the lack of medical justification,HMRC “reluctantly” accommodated Bentley’s request to work from home. He was later placed on a performance improvement plan and filed a formal complaint alleging disability and victimisation, claiming a lack of support following alleged abuse from a colleague. This stemmed from a prior incident where he provided evidence in a colleague’s employment tribunal against Michael Connell, who responded with a hostile message via Microsoft Teams, calling Bentley a “spineless little f*ing worm” and a “sneaky slimy prick.”
The tribunal ultimately dismissed Bentley’s claims, with Employment Judge Dawn Shotter criticizing his conduct as “vexatious and abusive.” The judgment highlighted that the only change as the lockdown period was Bentley’s preference for remote work. Judge Shotter also noted Bentley “exaggerated his evidence including that given in relation to his health conditions.”
The tribunal found that Bentley suffered from anxiety, depression, and stage three kidney disease for over two decades, but that medical advice confirmed there was “no medical reason” for him to refuse returning to the office. Furthermore, the judgment stated that Bentley’s preference was to avoid the office, not that he was unable to work there.
Bentley, speaking from his home in bootle, expressed his anger towards the PCS, stating, “They encouraged me to go down this path, saying they had never seen a worse case of victimisation… But then they abandoned me. They didn’t even turn up for the hearing, leaving me on my own.” He admitted he simply “wanted it over and done with.”
An HMRC spokesperson acknowledged the court’s decision, stating the institution is “an office-based organisation, albeit one that offers flexible working arrangements for employees where appropriate.” The case underscores the complexities surrounding post-pandemic work arrangements and the potential consequences of pursuing legal challenges without a strong evidentiary basis.
