Your flexible working request was refused. But was it actually a legitimate reason?

You put in a flexible working request. Thought it through, wrote it up, submitted it. And then your employer came back and said no, because their policy says you need to be in the office three or four days a week.

On its own, that isn't a valid statutory reason to refuse. An employer has to link that requirement to one of the legal business grounds and explain why it applies.

The whole point of a flexible working request is to change an existing arrangement. On its own, that kind of reasoning usually isn't enough. The employer still needs to show how keeping the current arrangement meets one of the legal grounds.

What does the law actually say?

Employers in the UK can only refuse a flexible working request on one of eight specific grounds. Things like the burden of additional costs, a detrimental effect on meeting customer demand, or an inability to reorganise work among existing staff.

"Our policy says you need to be in the office" is not on that list.

What makes this even more frustrating is that many of the same employers refusing requests cite a flexible working policy sitting on their intranet. They've committed in writing to considering requests fairly and individually. Falling back on a blanket office rule, without tying it to a real business reason, risks not meeting what the law actually requires.

The parent in the room

A parent, often but not always a mother, is back from maternity leave or juggling childcare alongside a demanding job. They ask for one or two extra days working from home. They're not asking to do less. They're asking to do the same job from a different place.

The employer says no, because the policy says three days in the office.

If the refusal isn't backed up by a clear business reason, it can look less like a genuine operational need and more like a default position. And depending on the circumstances, it can carry real legal risk, particularly where the refusal disproportionately affects employees with caring responsibilities.

Being reasonable is easier for everyone

A conversation costs very little. A tribunal costs a lot more, and that's before you factor in the time, the stress, and the reputational damage. Where a refusal isn't clearly linked to one of the legal grounds and handled reasonably, the legal risk becomes very real.

It's also worth saying: considering a request individually doesn't mean saying yes to everyone or opening the floodgates. Each case stands on its own. The question is whether the rigidity is actually gaining anything, or whether it's just easier than having the conversation.

Being the employer who turned down a returning parent because of a policy isn't a great look. People talk, and workplace culture is a lot more visible from the outside than it used to be.

What can you do if this happens to you?

If your request has been refused and the reason isn't clearly explained or linked to a legal ground, you have options.

Ask for the decision in writing if you don't have it already, along with the specific business reason. Vague or policy-based refusals are much harder to defend once they're written down.

You can appeal. Most employers have a process for this, and going through it formally shows you're taking it seriously and creates a paper trail if things escalate.

Think about whether there are grounds for a grievance, especially if the refusal is connected to a protected characteristic like sex or disability.

You don't have to accept a refusal that doesn't stack up. And you don't have to figure it out on your own.

If your flexible working request has been refused and something doesn't feel right about the reason, get in touch. I can help you work out what your options actually are.