A driving examiner tried to claim £77 for lunch expenses after driving to Winchester for work.

Andrew Woodcock claimed he was entitled to the payments, accruing a total of £77.55 over 15 occasions, as he was working out of his Maybush base, in Green Lane.

However, the DVSA strongly disputed this, stating that Winchester formed part of his workplace.

Mr Woodcock started working for the company as an examiner in 2021, operating within a test centre ‘cluster’.

This included Southampton LGV test centre, Southampton Forest Hills, Southampton Maybush, and Winchester Driving Test Centre on Christchurch Road.

During the recruitment process, Mr Woodcock was told that "travel to and from workplaces within the cluster and your home will be in your own time and at your own expense", according to a ruling published following the employment tribunal.

But this information did not offer him food for thought as he claimed money for lunch from his employer on 15 occasions – between May 14, 2023 and July 11, 2023.

The amount totalled £77.55.

An employment tribunal heard how Mr Woodcock believed he was entitled to claim for his lunches when he was asked to work from locations other than Maybush.

But travelling to and working in Winchester did not exempt him as it was within his cluster, according to the DVSA.

READ MORE: Hampshire woman must pay nearly £200 for using mobile phone while driving

He raised a formal complaint with the DVSA in June of last year which was rejected at the end of the month.

All the test centres in his cluster were deemed to be the claimant’s normal workplace and he was therefore not entitled to the claim, the tribunal was told.

Speaking at the tribunal, Judge Nicholas Roper said the dispute between both parties has "rumbled on".

The judge said how the DVSA paid Mr Woodcock his requested claim of £77.55 to "avoid the time and costs of attending this hearing".

But no admission of liability was made, leading him to refuse the payment.

Judge Roper said: “The expenses claimed by the claimant are limited to the individual instances where the claimant was required to travel to Winchester within his cluster.

“There is no indication in the relevant contractual documents that this would ever form part of the wages otherwise payable to the claimant.

“The claimant’s claim is hereby dismissed.”