top of page

DWF, Terri Schofield, Oliver Sargent representing Stephen Griffiths and Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune

DWF Manchester represented my former employers Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune and Stephen Derwent Griffiths in my claim against them. DWF's name is not mentioned in the judgment. Here is the link:

There are two judgments and the Respondents' names are, you notice different. Actually on the costs judgment Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune is only mentioned as the second respondent. Which is very useful considering her illegal actions. The names on the other judgment are not their legal names either. And it's where my complaint against DWF should start because they obviously checked their clients' names. Ms Schofield and her supervisor Mr Sargent referred to their clients by their legal names but put these ones on court forms and correspondence. I brought this up many times but they ignored it. When Mr Griffiths misspelled his name three times under oath as 'Steve Griffiths' everyone ignored it. When I finally applied for an order for them to reveal these people's true legal names Ms Schofield objected! Yes, she did. She said it was "unnecessary'. Well, the first thing about anyone and the first thing on any form is names and their lies started there. By the way if an employee misspells an employer's name on the claim form it is not accepted. But when an employer is keen to use names other than their legal names, it seems to be ok for lawyers. I have even been blamed for using these names on forms while ignoring these were the names on my contract. Imagine being blamed for believing an employer when they claim to be a certain person. I always thought the state would be responsible for checking such details and employers would use their legal names on such important documents. Instead I am being told I can prove their names if any problems arise. Isn't this something the state should do on behalf of citizens?

By the way, there is not a way I can even mention all the things DWF's Schofield and Sargent did to me. It was appalling. But I will try:

Ms Schoefield was, how can I say?.. very misleading. For example she sent me an email and asked if those were the documents I wanted in the bundle. And there was nothing there. Later she claimed she couldn't see the documents. And later they left my evidence out of the bundle. Of course they were all the important evidence that showed their clients' lies. They were rude and aggressive with me. The respondents keep using an irrelevant email to falsely claim they had included all the evidence in the bundle but this is not true. What was mentioned in that email was WhatsApp messages, what they left out of the bundle was a payslip that showed the respondents had withdrawn my own tax refund to use as part of my pay and the draft employment contract.

DWF came to the preliminary hearing and claimed their client had paid me more than Minimum Wage, yet later they came and argued they hadn't and that I didn't deserve it. They emailed my representative and lied to him about the relevant legislation and asked him to convince me to withdraw my claim. They got him to withdraw the gross part of my claim and tried to get him to withdraw Minimum Wage as well. They also tried to get him to prepare a new schedule of loss that they wanted. I sacked my representative over this. My other claims were all unlisted because of DWF's tactics. It's worth mentioning that my wages fell below minimum wage because Stephen Griffiths who is a tax adviser managed to avoid paying income tax on my wages. He even topped up my first pay with my own tax refund but had to give it back to me when I complained. Also part of my initial claim was that they switched my employment contract after I read it and lowered my salary as it was stated on my employment contract. It is a long story but this is the summary of how this claim came about. At no stage they offered to pay what they owed me in wages to avoid this lengthy court case. This of course suited DWF and the Respondents themselves, I believe thoroughly enjoyed themselves. I had talked to them and we have even emails regarding my pay but yet they still avoided paying me correctly. Why would you, when you have a bespoke insurance that pays the wages you don't pay? In fact the insurance didn't seem to have checked much and paid DWF generously for a case anyone with integrity would know was going to be lost. Why does an insurance company support non payment of minimum wage anyway? it is an offence to not pay it in the first place.

Another point is that because minimum wage is a basic statutory right, at the hearing I was told the employers were making a claim against my minimum wage. Basically they had to prove they didn't have to pay me. So these people deceived me with wages promised more than minimum wage made me fight for my minimum wage because they chose not to pay it. There is also the issue of accommodation ofset; the accommodation was free and that was the reason I accepted this job. Yet they came to court and claimed most of my minimum wage as rent etc. DWF facilitated this. Obviously I am not a law person but when you put something in a contract you can't later take it back, right? It's also deception to offer something you don't intend to provide. Right? DWF overlooked all this and got paid by an insurance to rip me off my wages as "accommodation ofset".

DWF threatened me with costs from their first email to the last minute before the costs hearing. They claimed their clients were paying their own legal costs. That was a big lie. They lied about their clients' reliance on an insurance to pay what they owed me in wages. DWF put me thorough hell so their clients can save a little bit of money on my earned wages, despite the fact I had been promised more than Minimum Wage anyway. It still is beyond me why an insurance was to pay my wages. Why did this insurance company pay these so called employers and their lawyers to deduct my wages as accommodation ofset? It seems that this was the only reason why this case was brought to this point; so DWF could charge the insurance about £40K for representing what is essentially wage theft.

I paid a predatory solicitor to represent me because of these extreme costs threats and horrendous behaviour. I lost more money than I was trying to recover due to DWF's conduct.

These so called employers committed crimes against me which DWF were in knowledge of. One was that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had contacted all of my former employers and had misrepresented herself as a prospective employer to get references about me half a year after I stopped working for them and during the proceedings. Ms Schofield and Mr Sargent didn't only mind that, they actually put a couple of these so called 'references' in the bundle. I was shocked to see them in a court bundle and challenged them after the hearing. Guess what Ms Schofield wrote to me? That her clients had a right to obtain post employment references and that they didn't have to reveal their methods. Well, their method was obvious fraud. And it also is not legal or acceptable behaviour for anyone, let alone a former employer. As seen in the judgment, although the judge ignored most of their awful behaviour she describes this part as a 'ruse' to discredit me. Ms Schofield thinks its ok to treat a claimant who is trying to recover at least some of her wages in this manner and justifies it. Apparently I am supposed to believe her because she is a law person.

Ms Mareuge-Lejeune apparently went to the Police and tried to complain about me because I was taking her to court. This as well was known by DWF's Schofield and Sargent, yet they thought it was an ok behaviour. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune also tried to get DWF to report me to Police for communicating with the company. Yes, that's the level of conduct I have had to deal with for bringing a claim against these people. At least DWF didn't go as low as this, I guess because it would have been stupid.

The Respondents Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and Stephen Griffiths had apparently signed a document for their payroll company Nannytax which stated they were not going to pay me Minimum Wage. This was never given to me and it made it clear these people had not only avoided paying me minimum wage, they planned not to from the beginning and hid it from me. As explained above, DWF came to a court of law with these people and claimed they had paid me more than minimum wage while sitting on this document.

Another shocking piece of conduct from DWF was to include a death certificate of a relative of Ms Mareuge-Lejeune in the bundle. This relative who had died eight years ago obviously had nothing to do with an employment claim. I found it so profoundly disrespectful, I still cannot get over it. I don't know what any of these people were thinking. They didn't explain it either.

DWF didn't tell the insurance company about the illegal conduct of their client. Instead they blamed some of my emails being long to charge them more. The insurance company doesn't seem to have checked what was happening either. So they all had fun while I struggled to represent myself against these manipulative people while losing more of my money.

Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and S Griffiths recently boasted that they got compensation from DWF and are planning to sue them. Apparently they are unhappy that they lost a minimum wage claim despite all their lies and behaviour described above. It seems that they made a profit while stealing my wages and warring on me. All thanks to DWF. I guess the insurance company paid them enough to be shared.

Read the judgments, this information is in there. If you read between the lines you will also see that the Respondents tried to make me pay some receipts. Those receipts were for the food Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and Stephen Griffiths ate and other household items. They actually scanned dozens of receipts and sent them to the Tribunal, asked me to pay for them. They were worried that the receipts amounted to more than the minimum wage they owed me and was apparently going to be paid by an insurance anyway. They asked the judge what she wanted to do with the amount I owed them. It seems they expected the judge to order me to send them a cheque. Another thing I cannot get over is that some of the receipts were for meat and I am vegetarian. They even wanted me to pay for the stamps they had used... Puzzled? So am I. But it didn't finish there, even after withdrawing their reconsideration applications for these receipts etc, long after the judge confirmed the proceedings had come to an end Mr Sargent sent me a bizarre letter and claimed these so called employers had overpaid me by £225, which was a few pounds more than what they owed me. Mr Sargent just wrote and emailed or posted anything these people told him without blinking. I guess these people must always feel they are owed instead of accepting the fact that they have deceived me and ripped me off my wages and two years dealing with a claim that should have been very simple. Mr Sargent obliged.

DWF and the insurance company who paid them has a responsibility toward the justice system and towards myself. DWF served their client indiscriminately and abused me in the process. These two clients of theirs filed at least three complaints against the judges and the judiciary which DWF initially claimed they had nothing to do with but it came to light they knew about it and possibly advised them regarding these complaints.

DWF tried to strike out my claim by using medical reports belonging to their clients! Yes, they did that. DWF used two reports and there were more presented to the Tribunal later on by the respondents themselves. I just can't believe this sort of behaviour is even allowed in a court of law. I was the claimant yet I had to deal with all this demanding behaviour.

Oh before I forget, Ms Schofield told me in written format that they were not going to give me a printed copy of their costs bundle and told me to print my own. A few hours before the hearing. Nearly 300 pages of it. How nice, isn't it? Yet, I gave them a copy of my bundle. I guess a Claimant who is fighting for minimum wage is more generous than these employers and has more resources than their aggressive representatives. And yes, They came to the costs hearing to ask me to pay them £40K on the basis the employers were "offended'. I mean, they were offended even when they were addressed by their legal names?

Most details in the costs judgment are wrong as the decision was written very late. Those details are very misleading and I am trying to correct them. Mistakes are very useful for DWF as they cover their lies towards the insurance company. For example it states that I brought the Minimum wage claim in November etc. That simply isn't true as minimum wage is mentioned from September onwards. Not to forget this judge as well had been complained about prior to the hearing, of course by the offended employers.

Oh another thing: Mr Sargent prepared a subject access request for their clients, paid by the insurance company. It contained the illegally obtained references and clearly showed how Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had talked with several of my former managers, had pretended to be a prospective employer and had asked for references. They of course left out the good references out of the bundle but used what they thought meant something bad to use against me. They thought all this was ok. I mean, really? Does law mean anything to these people? Or rather, what does it mean to them?

Nearly forgot; Ms Mareuge-Lejeune also shared my information with others in an abusive manner and even managed to get copies of my payslips from former employers. The payslip also clearly showed that employer had lied about the nature of my employment but the respondents or DWF didn't mind that.

All that is written here belongs to the claim I provide the link to. I have a new claim against them. The new claim has a new number and is under their names that I believe are their legal names. I will not divulge any details of the new claim here. Not at this stage.

I will visit this post again to correct the grammar and the spelling.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page