Employment Tribunal Service - Croydon

my user review of the 5 named judges who where involved in my case. against the odds i won in the end. representing myself. i had a legal aid solicitor for advice and paper work. why are people afraid to name judges? please do so to help others. my claims were unfair dismissal, victimisation, disability/race discrimination. judge SPENCER. she was the judge at the first preliminary hearing. there is not much i can say about her as she presided over a short preliminary hearing. she did write clear directions for the main hearing. i got the impression that she had a built in lie detector and would have been happy for her to conduct the full hearing. judge TSAMADOS. more like a high street solicitor. he conducted the first full hearing. he failed to follow judge SPENCERS directions. continually mixed up my two work sites and witness names. he had very bad team work with the panel. made school boy errors like believing that a disabled person has to tick the disability box on their application form, to be considered disabled. he was later corrected in this by judge HARGROVE in his ruling. he was easily fooled by lies, ignored evidence. in the end he dismissed my claims, resulting in an inconsistent judgement, different from all the other judges. judge MARTIN again this was a preliminary hearing. she seemed very thoughtful, personable and engaged. i would have been happy to have her for the full hearing.i had so much evidence against the respondent, i asked her how much of it i need to use to get my point across. she said "pull every rabbit out the hat." judge ANDREWS she conducted the second full hearing in regards to whether i was disabled and my disputed employment status. i won both claims. she was diligent, intelligent and thorough. her calmness helped keep proceedings, less emotional. both her and judge HARGROVE disagreed with judge TSAMADOS about the respondents knowledge of my disability (inconsistent outcome) i found her the best judge because everything is based on actual evidence and not how she feels. judge HARGROVE. i have mixed thoughts about him. i won my case despite his clear bias towards the respondent. he was over ruled twice by the panel on essential issues. he is intelligent and had very good team work with the panel. he took time to explain the law although he expected amateurs to understand and apply the law in the same way professionals would. he had his head in his hands often, was agitated, over emotional and arrogant. this caused a very emotional hearing. i don't think he realised that the judge sets the mood. (see above, judge Andrews) i also had two telephone hearings with him, he was much calmer with no emotional outbursts. unfortunately his judgement is based on his feelings to such an extent he condemned me for thinking i was always right, even when i was proven right and won my case. lucky for others he has few cases and is near retirement. unfortunately judge TSAMADOS (above) is also led by his emotions.

my experience so far has been horrendous, I'm a bit wary of leaving a review in case it has an impact on the outcome of my case but the way the case has been dealt with so far has been a reality check for how government services in this country operate. Judges and case workers regularly miss their own deadlines by months, case workers rarely answer the phone, and when they do, they are often rude and unhelpful, claiming they have been instructed to "get people off the line as quickly as possible" Emails aren't responded to for months on end, leaving everyone involved in a state of utter confusion and chaos, while the respondent's expensive legal team take advantage of the confusing situations and use them to their benefit. I'm aware of the legislation change in 2017, but they should have adapted by now, there needs to be a degree of some competency otherwise the entire office is redundant as it evidently can't cope with the pressure of day-to-day tasks. Having looked at reviews from former-employees, it's very clear that the issues are internal to this particular office and not political/indicative of tribunal services overall. At this point I'm at a loss as I have no confidence that my case will even be seen by them - it's a shame that our government bodies make the UK seem like a third world nation.

I have to give a star because there is no lower possibilities. Terrifying experience in terms of " Impartiality, equitably or honestly " coming from judge. I will be back with details .

Very poor service. Waste of time. Doesn’t even deserve one star. Waited a whole year for nothing. No room for improvement. The judge was ignorant and wouldn’t allow me as the claimant to explain my side of the case.

Disgraceful. I bought a case against a company called Zaan Services T/A Domino's Pizza in 2008. The case was dealt with by a female judge called Jane Liddington. We had a pre-hearing review which was chaired by the regioonal judge where I asked for an extension of time so I could get legal representation. The judge asked me to ask the employment tribunal on the day which I did but was rejected by this judge (Jane Liddington) in breach of Article 6 Right to a Fair Hearing Human Rights Act 1998.I ended up losing the case which left me bitter. But this particular employment judge was very friendly to the respondent employer and accepted everything they said orally as credible when all the evidence pointed in favour of me. She directed the two lay members to also rule against me by using her influence. She then produced a judgment whereby I was accused of fabricating everything apart from the fact that they failed to issue me with written particulars. However, I got nothing as that claim alone is not freestanding and you would have to win on one of the other grounds. I had pictures and pictures do not lie. She bypassed the authorities of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which is not allowed. At the end of the hearing the respondent's legal advisor looked worried and she simply said to him don't worry it won't make any difference, referring to my submissions. I appealed to the employment appeal tribunal and they all three members ganged up against me by denying that she was biased in favour of the respondent. The appeal was ultimately unsuccessful and the reason being because I represented myself and not because my claim was not genuine but when you have respondent loving judges chairing hearing they need to ensure that so far as it it possible that both sides are treated equally and if anything they should lean in favour of the claimant and not the multinationals. This judge is dodgy to the extreme and constantly presided over cases which were eventually overturned on appeal. I am not sure if she is still an employment tribunal judge but I wish I could have challenged her and those two idiot lay members who should have known better. This experience really left a bad taste in my mouth with me vowing never ever to step foot in an employment tribunal ever again. Instead I will go to the small claims court. If I ever see her ugly face again I will tell her what I think of her.