A professional dog walker sued for unfair dismissal after resigning because she had ‘too many dogs to walk’.
Alexandra Bell said her dog walking company had overloaded her with pets which made her late to pick up her son from school.
She claimed she was forced to resign because of the issues and then took the company to an employment tribunal.
Miss Bell also said she was not given access to water or toilet facilities whilst at work walking dogs.
However the dog walker was ‘careless’ and accidentally sent her claims to the employment courts in Northern Ireland rather than in Britain, meaning they were not made within the time limit.
Her claims were therefore dismissed.
Miss Bell started working for Good Boy Dog Walker, based in Haxby, North Yorks, in July 2022.
She suffered from ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia.
But Miss Bell said that after working at the dog walkers for two years, she began to experience issues.
On July 19, 2024, she complained that she ‘was delayed in picking up her son allegedly because she had too many dogs to walk’.
She said that the same thing happened on September 16, with her having ‘too many dogs to walk on that day meaning that she was delayed in picking up her son from school’.
Moreover Miss Bell’s boss was unable to help because she was at the races in Thirsk, North Yorks.
Just a couple of days after, she sent a letter of resignation into the company.
But Miss Bell then went to an employment tribunal in Hull to complain that she had been forced to resign because of the company’s treatment of her – namely that she had ‘too many dogs’ to walk.
She also claimed that it had failed to pay her for her 15-minute meal breaks and that it did not ‘provide water or toilet facilities’ for her while she walked dogs.
But Yorkshire-based Miss Bell mistakenly sent her claims to the employment courts in Northern Island and did not rectify her mistake until long-after the time limit for her complaints had passed.
She explained: “I didn’t look – I just assumed it was all the same.”
Employment Judge Ian Miller was forced to dismiss her claims.
He said: “We conclude on balance that [Miss Bell] was simply careless, she sent the claim to the wrong place and did not check where she was sending it.
“By the time [Miss Bell] became aware of her mistake she was out of time to present her claims.
“This is unfortunate for [Miss Bell], but in our judgement it was reasonably practicable for [Miss Bell] to present her claims for unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages in time.
“We do not therefore extend time for the presentation of her claims, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider those claims and they are dismissed.
“[Miss Bell] had had, by January 19 2025 when she sent her claim to Northern Ireland, four months to prepare her claim.
“She had done so by writing a detailed and relevant claim form. She said that she spent time researching it.
“[Miss Bell] was not under any real pressure of time to find the address and quickly submit it.
“She had had four months to find the correct address and, even when she did submit it on January 19, she still had a further day to double check the address.
“In respect of the reasons for the delay, we have explained above that [Miss Bell] had no good reason. It was a mistake and, in our judgement, an unreasonable one for the reasons we have set out.”
Her complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and failure to pay holiday pay were each dismissed.
About the Author
