HMRC worker ordered to pay £20,000 after refusing to return to office following lockdown

Martin Bentley claimed his anxiety and kidney issues prevented his return to work after Covid-19 lockdown rules were relaxed, a tribunal in Liverpool heard.

He had been instructed to work from home at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 but failed to return to the Merseyside office when bosses told him to.

Read more: A four day working week deserves four days' pay, writes Nick Ferrari

Read more: Older workers hold the key to rebuilding Britain’s economy

The government employee worked from home until he retired in 2024, despite an Occupational Health report suggesting he could return to in-person work with no issue.

He also refused to make phone calls from 2019 onwards, after a health report said he couldn't "cope with telephony without it making him ill".

Mr Bentley attempted to sue HMRC for disability discrimination, but an employment tribunal ruled there was "no medical reason" for him not to return to work.

The "vexatious" civil servant was ordered to pay £20,000 as his claims would never have succeeded.

Mr Bentley first began working as an assistant officer at HMRC in Liverpool in January 2012.

He had suffered with anxiety, depression and stage three kidney disease for over two decades, the tribunal heard.

But a health report in December 2021 concluded that there was "no clinical barrier" preventing him from working on the telephone.

It also found that his "personality and emotional response" were not best suited for this type of work.

Mr Bentley also confirmed during a Stress Management Plan meeting that "the phones make me feel very stressed", adding that there was a hostile atmosphere between those who did and did not work on the phones.

But after COVID-19 restrictions eased and staff were allowed to return to work, Mr Bentley refused to come in.

In January 2022, he again refused to come back into the office after bosses announced there was an expected return to the office for everyone.

By March 2022, his line manager saw problems in his work and found it difficult to manage him remotely.

HMRC "reluctantly" made adjustments for him, even though there was "no medical reason" for his contract to be changed.

Mr Bentley submitted a formal concern form alleging disability discrimination and victimisation after being put on a personal improvement plan.

He continued to refuse a phased return to office work - even though his manager said he "would put him sitting next to the toilet if in the office".

"He was prepared to use whatever means he could to achieve this end in order that he never worked in the office and never saw his managers physically face to face," a tribunal statement read.

"In the years leading to his retirement in September 2024, [Mr Bentley] achieved this end as he has never worked in the office again and the first time he met his line manager face-to-face was at this final [tribunal] hearing.

"The information before [HMRC] at the time was that [Mr Bentley] did not want to work in the office as opposed to could not work in the office,' it added.

The judgment said: "In short, the medical advice was that there was no medical reason for [Mr Bentley] refusing to return to work in the office."

Employment Judge Dawn Shotter slammed Mr Bentley for acting "vexatiously and abusively" as the claims had "no reasonable prospect of success".

He was ordered to pay £20,000 to HMRC as a contribution to their legal costs.

Judge Shotter concluded: "It is notable that [Mr Bentley] exaggerated his evidence including that given in relation to his health conditions.

"The Tribunal did not accept [Mr Bentley's] uncorroborated evidence that there was a conspiracy between managers who were hiding the fact he had provided a statement despite not being told by him of its existence.

"He was provided with online one-to-one training which supported him, and congratulated when performance improved.

"[Mr Bentley] has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings, or part of it, or the way that the proceedings, or part of it, have been conducted, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success."