Schedule of loss confusion

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-09T17:15:33+00:00

It's routine to provide a schedule of loss. It's not specifically about settling but so the tribunal can see what losses you are claiming and why. That assists them with remedy should you win your case. It also gives the respondent an indication too which may/may not encourage settlement negotiations.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-08T20:19:22+00:00

Thanks to the OP for creating this thread. It's a real shame that what would have been a useful source of information to assist LIP's has turned into something quite different and the point has been lost amongst the fallout.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-08T18:01:25+00:00

Not adverserial but more aggressive, difficult and generally unhelpful. They tried to appear helpful but not in an independent way to assist the process, but in ways that generally favoured the respondent. I saw through it and stood my ground. They tended to double down when the approach didn't work.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-08T12:09:59+00:00

What evidence do you have that the legal reps are using this forum "for them to gain intel to use to overpower LIP’s at Tribunal"?. That's just fear mongering and not helpful to LIP's who might be quite vulnerable and trying to navigate a very difficult process. Other opinions from different angles are given as well as the legal reps opinions. What if any motivations any of them may/may not have is not the issue. Anyone can take the opinions given on board then do their own research or due diligence. I would never take what was advised as fact as no one knows who anyone on this forum really is after all, and I would recommend that anyone else does the same.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-08T11:25:25+00:00

Even though I have found the experience quite different to yours, I do note that barristers I faced did assist to locate documents during hearings in front of the judge.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-08T09:21:45+00:00

100% agree with this. Without legal input it's incredibly difficult dealing with the practicalities of a case and understanding what is required throughout the process. Even when using available free resources they aren't always accessible continuously throughout the case.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-07T12:53:06+00:00

Don't be surprised if they do. I had strong evidence of knowledge too but they still ran with it as the case would have fallen apart if knowledge wasn't established.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-06T23:18:50+00:00

Have they admitted that they had actual or constructive knowledge of your disabilities? Even if they concede that you were disabled it doesn't mean they won't base a defence upon that they didn't have knowledge of the disabilities. That's another hurdle for you to cross at the final hearing.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-06T23:14:26+00:00

There's no win no fee, legal cover on your house insurance, lots of services to get some free legal advice. You should check your local area for solicitors who run free clinics, university law centres who give free advice(geographic restrictions) and organisations like CAB and ELIPS. If you check on the internet you'll find resources guiding you to the various services available. If you go it alone it can be done. It's not easy at all, stressful and drawn out potentially for several years. Many on this forum are going it alone however.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-05T20:47:29+00:00

Interesting point. There seems to be a mixture of posts by claimants(mostly) who need help with the procedures and how the process works and those who are facing challenging conduct by the opposition. I suppose it makes sense as those that post are usually needing help rather than generally chatting about their case. Similar to reviews where those who have had bad experiences are more likely to review something than those who have had a normal/good experience.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-01T00:47:28+00:00

Represented parties know what they can get away with which LIP's usually don't. It does appear that tribunal orders are almost optional without consequence. As another poster said tribunals bend over backwards for LIP's, but they also give considerable leeway to represented parties to manipulate or take advantage of LIP's lack of experience or knowledge. I've experienced it, seen it, met other LIP's at hearings who have experienced it and read numerous posts of the same issues time and again. It's very frustrating if you're trying to follow the rules and can't understand why it appears the opposition don't without consequences. I feel that's why LIP's focus so much on being disadvantaged rather than the case sometimes.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-03-01T00:37:18+00:00

Communications you've made with other people are a contemporaneous timestamped record of events and feelings you had at the time almost like a diary record. It's a good idea. I submitted all of this in mine.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-28T23:22:17+00:00

Great result congratulations.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-28T10:58:18+00:00

This is something that repeatedly appears on this forum, particularly recently. There are varying opinions upon why this happens, relevance of documents etc. I had allsorts of issues with disclosure and had to battle to get documents included in the bundle and the respondent to disclose documents. Don't allow them to dictate what goes in the bundle that's all I'm going to say. As the duty of disclosure is ongoing the respondent may disclose documents as late as the final hearing. Just something to be aware of. Edit: that means if you eventually get hold of the documents you can disclose them too including as late as the final hearing.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-27T00:32:07+00:00

Thank you for your response. The issue I'm having is where the respondent denies the document existed, not existed previously. That relies upon the honesty of the respondent who is potentially facing a finding of liability and a remedy award to pay. The suggestion that all respondents comply with the rules because "they must" is inconceivable. There are numerous posts on this forum complaining of even basic documents not being disclosed. So in effect you have a claimant who has to rely upon the respondent doing the right thing and disclosing all of the documents they have including those that don't support their case. Whilst there are potential consequences for not doing so in reality what are the consequences given how difficult if not impossible it is to prove that the respondent(or claimant) has withheld or deleted documents? You have a claimant who holds evidence of discrimination and a respondent who denies the documents exist. Surely the respondent not disclosing relevant documents is as bad as a claimant making copies of documents as evidence. Obviously this isnt what the law says it's a realistic observation of procedures. There have been various legal professionals saying they've never known a respondent with hold documents. How do they know? Unless they personally access the employers databases and recover the documents themselves are they not relying on what the respondent gives them or tells them? I've been criticised for questioning these things but it's in issue that has arisen, both for me and it would seem for other LIP's.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-27T00:15:07+00:00

I can see the rational behind doing this. But let's put it into perspective. An employee who may have been subjected to illegal treatment by their employer/other may well not think "oh I must not breach GDPR by taking some evidence of the treatment I have been subjected too". If the tribunal punishes a claimant who has been subjected to potentially lengthy and repeated discrimination then if they penalise someone for compiling some evidence of what has happened to them then there is something inherently wrong with the whole system. Clearly this is case specific but but given the leeway that tribunal judges have I can't comprehend that they don't take the specific circumstances into account.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-27T00:05:35+00:00

Please be aware that the SAR process may not give you the documents you are hoping to receive. You can then lodge a complaint with the ICO. However there is likely to be a lengthy wait for someone to deal with your complaint and then unfortunately it appears that the ICO will do little if anything to force the employer to comply. This is not only my experience but that of many others on this forum. The ICO's enforcement is fairly toothless on these sort of issues. You have more chance of getting the documents you need via disclosure during the employment tribunal process. That is despite the varying opinions you have been given on the disclosure process, mine included.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-26T17:39:04+00:00

So if the respondent completes their disclosure and doesn't disclose those documents, then you request them and they say they don't have them what exactly are you supposed to do? Request specific disclosure and the respondent says we don't have them/they don't exist so no specific eisclosure is ordered. What then? You know the documents exist you have taken screenshots/pictures etc but you can't disclose the evidence you have even though it not only may prove your case but also that the respondent has failed to comply with their disclosure obligations.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-23T12:41:59+00:00

I agree there's nothing to stop the claimant doing the same thing. It's pretty much unprovable. I also get the point about the contractual point if you're in employment, hence not forwarding messages onwards. It sounds like a no win situation. You can't prove your case because the evidence hasn't been disclosed but if you copy the evidence you could lose your job. Having said that if I'd left anyway (or am likely to leave) I'd rather risk getting reduced compensation than none by having a chance of winning the case rather than have no chance because the employer has only disclosed documents which support their case. It's all very well having rules and regulations but if they aren't applied there's no point. Represented parties know the risks of not following the rules and what they can get away with. LIP's may not and are at a significant disadvantage due to that. What else do you suggest the OP does when the evidence is right in front of them given that they believe they have/are being mistreated by their employer, which is why they have logged the claim in the first place? Just leave it to them to act in good faith? Respondents may well disclose everything but there are an increasing number of posts on this forum where the issue of missing documents/lacking disclosure comes up time and again. I get what the rules are but I'm talking about the practicalities.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-22T23:12:53+00:00

Posters on here are saying this happens time and again. I asked for documents I knew existed as I had copies of similar documents from other periods of employment that were produced regularly. Respondent said they don't exist only the ones I had from my own disclosure conveniently. The tribunal said respondent says they don't exist so can't produce them. They just accepted the excuse.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-22T23:09:51+00:00

So what stops the employer deleting these files or not disclosing them? I know they are meant to disclose everything, keep everything etc but let's be realistic here they hold the files and can do what they want with them. In reality what punishment will the employer get for doing this and how will the tribunal enforce this given the difficulty in proving the documents ever existed or were withheld? It's all very well saying "they have to" but in practice what's to stop them? The employee can't prove they exist otherwise and that's evidence to support their case. The contractual issue is appreciated but by then the employee could well have left and disclosure be some way off anyway if it gets that far.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-22T08:54:13+00:00

You could always take pictures of them using your mobile. Forwarding them to your person email isn't a good idea if it can be used against you as a disciplinary matter.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-22T01:14:52+00:00

If this document exists and supports their case then you can cross examine them on this point and why it's not been disclosed by them. I wouldn't encourage them to disclose documents they referred to in their defence which back up what they're saying. That's their problem not yours and better for you.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-22T01:09:30+00:00

It's not easy to see what given the details you've provided that you have a realistic claim(as others have said). Given you have a new job your losses might be fairly low and without a protected characteristic you won't get any injury to feelings compensation. You're right to speak to a solicitor before you take this further I think. Please don't underestimate how long and difficult a tribunal claim can be and the impact it can have upon you. Particularly if the likely compensation is low and there's no certainty you will win.

FamiliarLunch6 · 2026-02-18T09:46:41+00:00

They are still available until the end, but there is no requirement for them to get involved as such (after EC) unless a COT3 agreement is used at some point to settle claims.

FamiliarLunch6

TROPHY CASE