Can an employer deny responsibility after acknowledging reliance on unclear guidance?
I’m looking for some honest views on whether I’m being unreasonable here, particularly from anyone familiar with UK employment law / NHS processes / disability discrimination issues.
I work for an NHS Trust and have ADHD, which was disclosed to management in 2024. I have:
- a Health Passport,
- Psychiatry UK adjustment recommendations,
- Access to Work involvement,
- and documented communication needs around clear written/step-by-step guidance.
Earlier this year I was trying to access the Trust Fleet Scheme. My initial application was declined on National Minimum Wage grounds, so I contacted Workforce multiple times between January–March 2026 asking for guidance around affordability and eligibility.
Throughout the discussions:
- Workforce discussed affordability,
- salary deductions,
- Vivup deductions,
- and my upcoming pay progression.
- I was told affordability would improve after pay progression.
- I was advised to apply once the increase had been applied.
- I was told they would review the order after my new salary hit ESR.
At no stage during any of these discussions was I told about a separate Trust rule limiting total salary sacrifice deductions to 20% of salary.
Because of the way the situation was being explained to me, I understood the issue to be affordability/timing rather than a fixed eligibility barrier. Based on that understanding, I returned my existing lease car in preparation for transitioning into the fleet scheme.
When the application was later declined, I was told for the first time that the actual reason was the Trust’s 20% salary sacrifice threshold.
The Trust has since acknowledged:
- there was a “gap in communication”,
- that the 20% threshold “was not referenced clearly within the email exchanges” I relied upon,
- and acknowledged that as a neurodivergent employee I rely on “clear, direct and structured guidance”.
I am NOT arguing:
- that they guaranteed approval,
- that the policy shouldn’t exist,
- or that I was “owed a car”.
My argument is more:
- if I repeatedly sought guidance,
- they actively discussed affordability and encouraged reapplication after pay progression,
- but failed to identify the determinative threshold despite having all my salary/deduction information,
- was it reasonable for me to rely on the direction of that guidance?
- and is it unreasonable for me to feel the Trust should bear some responsibility for the financial/practical fallout that followed?
The impact has been significant financially and emotionally and has massively exacerbated my ADHD symptoms.
I’ve now raised a formal grievance and started ACAS early conciliation, but Unite declined representation very quickly and I honestly don’t know whether I’m being completely unrealistic or whether there is actually something in this.
Would genuinely appreciate balanced opinions rather than just validation either way.