A HRMC worker who claimed his anxiety and kidney issues prevented him from returning to the office after lockdown has been ordered to pay £20,000 in legal costs.
Martin Bentley was ‘prepared to use whatever means he could’ to avoid returning to the office when lockdown rules were relaxed, a tribunal in Liverpool heard.
He had refused to make phone calls for some years after a health report in 2019 said he couldn’t ‘cope with telephony without it making him ill’.
In March 2020, he was instructed to work from home during the Covid-19 pandemic, but he refused to return to the office when he was told to do so.
Until he retired in 2024, he got his way and worked from home, despite an Occupational Health report suggesting he could work in person with no issue.
Later, he attempted to sue HMRC for disability discrimination, but an employment tribunal ruled there was ‘no medical reason’ for him not to return to work.
He was also branded as ‘vexatious’ and 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.
HRMC worker, Martin Bentley was ‘prepared to use whatever means he could’ to avoid returning to the office when lockdown rules were relaxed, a tribunal in Liverpool (pictured) heard
The tax department worker had suffered with anxiety, depression and stage three kidney disease for over two decades,’ the tribunal heard.
In December 2021, a health report also concluded that there was ‘no clinical barrier’ preventing him from working on the telephone.
However, it found his ”personality and emotional response’ weren’t best suited for this type of work.
And a month later, during a Stress Management Plan meeting, he confirmed that ‘the phones make me feel very stressed’.
He said there was a hostile atmosphere between those who did and did not work on the phones.
During his time at HMRC, he gave evidence for a female colleague’s employment tribunal.
Her allegations had been against Michael Connell, who, upon finding out that Mr Bentley had given evidence against him, sent him a Teams message describing him as a ‘spineless little f***ing worm’ and a ‘sneaky slimy prick’.
He later claimed that he had been abused and that his department had done little to support him.
However, after COVID-19 restrictions eased and staff could return to work, Mr Bentley refused to come in.
In January 2022, the office announced there was an expected return to the office for everyone, but Mr Bentley refused and continued to work from home.
Despite stating that he could not use public transport, when offered taxis to and from work, travel no longer became an issue, as he said he walked to work.
But by March 2022, there was an ‘impasse’.
His line manager saw problems in his work and found it difficult to manage him remotely.
The tribunal said HMRC ‘reluctantly’ made adjustments for him, even though there was ‘no medical reason’ for his contract to be changed from office to home working.
After being put on a personal improvement plan, Mr Bentley submitted a formal concern form alleging disability and victimisation.
He claimed that he had not been supported by HMRC when abused.
And he continued to refuse a phased return to office work – even though his manager ‘would put him sitting next to the toilet if in the office’.
He later said he wanted to move department – which his line manager offered to help him with, but by March 2022.
A tribunal judgement said the only thing that had changed since the lockdown – apart from the Michael Connell screenshot – was Mr Bentley’s preference for working from home.
‘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,’ it 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 dismissed his claims and scolded him 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.’
