Farming apprentice wins case against JCB dealer

A father’s determination to protect his son’s employment rights has led to a court victory that could lead to tighter controls over apprenticeship contracts, particularly in the agricultural sector.

Mario Costa-Sa, representing his son Joshua, won a crucial verdict against AT Oliver & Sons, a prominent JCB, Claas and other farm machinery company dealership in Luton, after the company sought to enforce a training commitment/loan agreement, following Joshua’s successful completion of a four-year apprenticeship in agricultural engineering.

The case, which concluded on 31 October 2024, has raised significant questions about the fairness and transparency of apprenticeship contracts in the UK, particularly in agricultural engineering.

See also: What does the future hold for agricultural apprenticeships?

The Costa-Sa family’s legal battle began last August after Joshua resigned from his apprenticeship at AT Oliver & Sons – a role he started on his 17th birthday. With a passion for engineering and a background on his family’s farm, Joshua was keen to pursue a career in agricultural engineering.

He secured a place with the well-known farm machinery dealer, confident that the apprenticeship would provide a solid foundation for his career. However, what initially seemed like a promising opportunity turned sour as Mario and Louise Costa-Sa discovered troubling terms in the contracts.

Loan agreement 

The main issue centred on a training commitment/loan agreement that Joshua was encouraged by the company to sign in May 2019 aged 16, before his GCSE exams.

The agreement was aimed at allowing AT Oliver & Sons to recoup a minimum 50% of the apprentice training and accommodation costs – up to £31,500 – via a complex and contradictory set of terms, during and after the apprenticeship.

Mario, a company director who negotiates large contracts for telecoms companies, questioned the contract’s fairness and enforceability from the outset. He argued that the terms were overly complex and inconsistent, especially for a 16-year-old apprentice.

Despite his parent’s concerns, the apprenticeship proceeded, with Joshua achieving a distinction in his Reaseheath College course.

However, the Costa-Sas say Joshua’s practical experience was marked by low pay (starting at £5/hour in 2019), poor treatment and deductions for the cost of his tools.

The tipping point came when Joshua decided to resign from his role as service engineer apprentice upon completing his four-year contract.

He had hoped to leave on good terms, but was shocked when AT Oliver & Sons deducted £650 from his final wages and issued a small claim at the county court which attempted to enforce the training commitment/loan agreement, and claim a further £2,000.

The Costa-Sas, from Bedfordshire, believing this was unjust, challenged the employer’s demands.

During the court hearing at Watford on 31 October, Mario represented his son without legal counsel, citing the poorly drafted contract as the crux of the case.

Testimony in court revealed that around 30 apprentices are believed to have been persuaded to sign this questionable contract. Some had also faced similar repayment demands, including one for over £4,000 for failing his probationary period.

During the hearing, the directors maintained that the terms of Joshua’s contract were clear and straightforward.

Judge’s verdict

However, Judge Moses, who presided over the hearing, sided with the Costa-Sa family, dismissing AT Oliver & Sons’ claim and ruled that the contract was unenforceable.

The judge found that the agreement was confusing and self-contradictory, particularly for an apprentice of Joshua’s age, and had been poorly drafted by the company’s outsourced HR provider.

The Costa-Sa family hopes this case will encourage clearer, fairer apprenticeship contracts and more transparency for farming apprenticeships, in line with wider UK employment practices and to match the standards of UK consumer law.

Reflecting on her son’s case, Louise Costa-Sa said: “Apprenticeships should be a stepping stone to a career, not a snake trap that leaves young people and their families in a vulnerable position.”

AT Oliver & Sons declined to comment.