Sacked manager awarded £21k over handling of abusive customer
A car dealership in Paignton unfairly and wrongfully dismissed an aftersales manager following a dispute with an aggressive customer who had harassed and abused his team members.
In a case that highlights employers’ risks around third-party harassment, the employment tribunal awarded Mr Spinks £21,000 for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal from Snows Motor Group.
Spinks had worked for Snows since 2009 and started at its Paignton garage in August 2024. A customer, referred to as X by the employment judge, was known to be difficult. He was aggressive and unpleasant when he did not get his own way, causing trouble and manipulating situations to get discounts.
As a result, Spink’s predecessor had told X that, in future, he should take his vehicle to Snows Toyota Exeter instead. It was not a formal ban but an indication that X was not welcome at the Paignton site.
When he started work at Paignton, Spinks agreed to allow X to come back to the garage. In February 2025, X brought a car in to have some work done. Initial diagnostics were carried out, but rather than paying, X wanted the work covered by warranty.
Fifteen calls in one day
Spinks and his team felt sure the work would not be covered, but X insisted. Over several days, he was aggressive, abusive, and intimidating towards employees, mainly over the telephone.
The tribunal heard that Spinks intervened because he witnessed team members being harassed and abused. He tried to act as a buffer between X and the dealership staff, and to try to get the warranty issue resolved.
With the facility to record telephone calls unavailable, the team produced a log of calls from X, showing he called about 29 times from 2-14 February 2025, including 15 calls in one day.
On 5 February, Spinks emailed Toyota GB: “I am awaiting some information from warranty on this. This customer is a red flag. He has been banned from Snows’ sites previously. We have advised him that the timing chain is rattling slightly, warranty would not cover this due to the fact the fault is very minor. Customer has harassed this dealership all afternoon yesterday, called ourselves and another of our dealerships 15 times since picking his vehicle up…”
On 16 February, Spinks sent an email to X, which included the following: “…calling us, bluntly telling us that we are not doing our jobs is not going to help yourself. My team do not want to accept your calls due to the allegations and mannerisms, which I witnessed today, towards them when calling in. You have been banned from our site previously and have been allowed to trade with ourselves under the conditions that this behaviour does not resume. If it continues, I will have no choice but to end this partnership in trying to get your vehicle fixed and insist you seek another dealership to start these proceedings with again. I will not have my team feeling threatened by anyone.”
‘Allow me to put this in simple terms’
He added that all further contact between the customer and the Paignton garage should be by email. The tribunal heard this was to protect Snows’ staff from abusive phone calls.
As series of emails between X and Spinks then ensued, culminating in one from Spinks, copied to his line manager Mr Philpot, which said: “Please allow me to put this in simple terms. At no point have we asked you to contact anyone. You have done this because it is your character to stir everything up and make everything a mess…”
Philpot emailed Spinks that he should not send emails like this to customers because it was condescending and rude. X complained to Toyota GB, after which Philpot told Spinks he should not have any further contact with the customer and that Philpot would deal with him from then on.
Philpot and Snows’ HR director held an investigation meeting with Spinks on 5 March, which resulted in a disciplinary hearing a week later.
The charges against him were: “Poor handling of a customer and their concerns, leading to a serious complaint and possible damage to the reputation of Snows; and unprofessional behaviour, not becoming of a manager.”
Despite the investigation uncovering several corroborative comments from team members in a questionnaire about X’s behaviour, the disciplinary officer, Mr Davies, summarily dismissed Spinks, saying there was no evidence that X was abusive or threatening in this instance.
Spinks appealed, complaining about the lack of recorded phone calls, but this was dismissed. Mr Austin, the appeals officer, wrote: “Your emails to X provided a black and white view of what you said in writing to X, word for word.”
‘Perverse conclusion’
Employment Judge Burns said there was “abundant evidence” that Spinks’ emails had been written under provocation from X, with the selfless motivation of protecting his team from abuse and protecting Snows against unjustified demands for a discount or refund.
He described Davies’ conclusion that there was no evidence that X was abusive or threatening as perverse “because it flew in the face of the available evidence”.
The judgment added: “A policy requiring managers to be polite to customers should not be rigorously enforced against managers in the type of exceptional situation which the claimant found himself in.
“The respondent’s own staff, including managers, have rights themselves not to be abused at work, and when they are, some understanding and empathy should be shown to them by the respondent.
Judge Burns awarded Spinks £8,340 for wrongful dismissal, and £12,690 for unfair dismissal, having concluded that summary dismissal was not within a range of reasonable responses.
“At the most,” said the judge, “the case called for a warning.”
Third-party harassment
Sarah Goldie, HR consultant in the employment team at Birketts law firm, said: “The customer isn’t always right! While this case doesn’t provide ‘carte blanche’ for employees to be unprofessional in their dealings with customers, it does demonstrate that taking proportionate action against inappropriate behaviour is acceptable.
“This is particularly important with the forthcoming protection from third-party harassment provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025 coming into force in October 2026. These provisions require employers to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent harassment.
“Employers should undertake a risk assessment to understand any staff groups at greater risk of harassment or other abuse, to update policies and training and to ensure other appropriate steps are taken to prevent and manage harassment from third parties.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
