The sales manager of BMW dealership near Harrogate was unfairly dismissed after selling a car against money laundering guidance, a tribunal has found.
James Dent was employed as head of sales at Stratstone BMW in Pannal until last September, when he was dismissed without notice from his job.
It followed the sale of a vehicle on September 1, which a tribunal in Leeds heard was one of the busiest trading days of the year, when new registrations were released.
A report from the tribunal, published yesterday, found Mr Dent had been asked not to hand over a new car to a customer on the “red list”, which indicated a third party was paying for the vehicle.
The list had been compiled after the company was contacted by police the previous day in relation to another buyer who was involved in criminal activity.
The tribunal was told a third-party funder was also seen as a risk for re-sale – when another garage which sells the car on at an inflated price. If the Harrogate dealership was found to have sold in these circumstances, it could lose its franchise with BMW and Mini, the hearing was told.
After an investigation, Mr Dent was told by Stratstone’s national franchise director for BMW and Mini, Anthony Partington, in a letter dated September 16, that he had been dismissed.
In the tribunal report, Judge Knowles wrote:
“The letter is effectively dismissal for decisions which place the respondent at risk of being knowingly involved with money laundering and also knowingly selling to resellers, exposing the franchise to possible penalties and his inability to follow a simple instruction from his regional director.”
The court heard Mr Dent had argued he was following a similar sale he had witnessed, when the regional sales director had effectively sold a car to a third party against company policy.
However, the tribunal found there were some differences between the two cases, including that the third party paying for the car was present during the transaction, though someone else collected the keys.
In his case, Mr Dent had not sought approval from a senior director before handing over the keys to someone when a third party, who was not present, was paying for the car.
‘Grave mistake’
Judge Knowles wrote:
“The claimant did not underestimate that he had done something seriously wrong. He described it as a wrong judgment on something that was high priority. He acknowledged that he overlooked the fact that they were not delivering the car to the paying customer.
“The claimant’s concluding comments were ‘I’d like to make it plain that I have not set out to deliberately contravene the company’s policy or risk myself or the company. I have made a grave mistake… but I’ve had a busy stressful day and I’ve made a poor judgement in the heat of the moment’.
“The claimant explained some circumstances in mitigation, that he had been busy that day, and that he had dealt with an extremely aggressive customer earlier who had been unhappy with the cleanliness of his new vehicle. He says his mind was elsewhere.”
The judge found there was no dispute between Mr Dent or his employer over whether the transaction had taken place on September 1.
However, what was disputed was the way in which the investigation was carried out.
Mr Partington’s letter made reference to other matters coming to light which showed “huge potential risk” to Stratstone, a trading name of Pendragon PLC.
Judge Knowles found these other matters had not been shared with Mr Dent during the disciplinary process and were not detailed in the dismissal letter.
‘Conscious decision’
In the letter, Mr Partington concluded:
“Finally, I can clearly see in the hearing, and throughout the relationship I have had with you, that the decisions made here are very unlikely to have been made for personal gain, or to knowingly de-fraud or compromise the business.
“Your attitude and approach has always proved to be professional and your commitment to the business is clear.”
Yet when Mr Dent appealed the decision and was unsuccessful, he was found to have “made a conscious decision to not follow clear instruction from your leader, and allowed the business to be put at risk by acting above your authority”.
The tribunal report also found the investigation into the regional sales director’s transaction, cited by Mr Dent as another example of a similar sale, had not been fully investigated.
Leeds Employment Tribunal at City Exchange in Leeds City Centre
Mr Dent said the real reason for his dismissal was because of the risk to the Harrogate garage of being known to have sold cars that were being paid for by third parties.
However, in response Stratstone BMW told the tribunal Mr Dent had been fully aware of the risk of releasing the car to the man in question, having helped to identify potential suspect transactions for that day.
The company said Mr Dent “acted contrary to clear management instructions” not to release the car, and accepted doing so warranted “some level of disciplinary action”, even dismissal.
Judge Knowles agreed that Mr Dent had handed the car over in contravention of the instructions he had been given.
Yet the report also found there was no evidence this was “deliberate” and that this had only been suggested following his appeal rather than as part of the disciplinary process.
It also found the “wider issues” had only been mentioned after the appeal, in the letter confirming Mr Dent’s dismissal, and no such issues had been put to him.
‘Hurdles to be cleared’
Concluding, Judge Knowles said that while the process of the dismissal had been unfair, Mr Dent’s actions meant he had been “wholly to blame for his dismissal”.
The judge therefore found Mr Dent had been unfairly dismissed, but had not been wrongly dismissed, and was not due any compensation in lieu of notice.
The report also said:
“Worryingly the anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing policy and related security processes seem to have been treated by both [Mr Dent] and the [regional sales director] simply as hurdles to be cleared. This makes the policy somewhat of a false dawn.
“I suspect that this… will be an uncomfortable read for the board and its audit and risk sub-committee who have clearly sponsored and approved the policy.”
Read more:
- 45 former CNG staff in £210,000 tribunal win against Harrogate firm
- Knaresborough woman who refused to wear face mask unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules
- Boroughbridge coach company fined £30,000 for harassing employee with disability
