PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
PROBATION REVIEW LETTER
Important legal-advice, jurisdiction and formality warning
This fictional letter is a worked example, not legal advice and not a universally valid probation decision. It is for an employee and employer in England and Wales. Before issuing it, the employer must check the employment contract, any probation and capability procedure, contractual notice, statutory minimum rights, Equality Act 2010 duties, reasonable adjustments, pregnancy and family-leave protections, whistleblowing, health and safety, immigration conditions and any collective arrangements. A probation label does not remove the need for a fair, evidence-based and non-discriminatory process. The employer must not rely on a protected characteristic, disability-related difficulty or protected disclosure without considering the applicable legal duties. This letter does not itself amend the contract unless the employee accepts a lawful written variation. All names, dates, addresses, figures and events are fictional.
To: Amelia Rose Fenwick, Senior Project Analyst Home address: 11 Brookmere Avenue, Leeds LS8 3QN From: Brackenwell Infrastructure LLP, LLP number OC438217 Employer address: 16 Quarry Square, Leeds LS1 5DR Date: 9 December 2026 Subject: outcome of probation review
Dear Amelia,
I write after the review meeting held on 3 December 2026 to confirm the proposal to extend your probationary period by three months, subject to your written agreement or an express contractual power permitting that extension and to the terms and support set out below. You joined Brackenwell on 14 September 2026 as a Senior Project Analyst under your employment contract dated 28 August 2026. Your contractual probation was six months and is due to end on 13 March 2027. Unless the proposed extension is agreed in writing or authorised by an express contractual power, this letter does not change your probation end date, basic salary, notice entitlement, continuous employment date or any other contractual term.
The decision is not a finding of misconduct and is not a final decision to terminate your employment. It reflects specific concerns about delivery of agreed project work and stakeholder communication, alongside the progress and relevant context considered at the review. The extended period is intended to give you a clear opportunity, appropriate support and a fair further assessment.
1. Chronology and process
On 14 September, you attended induction with Miriam Celeste Rowe, Partner and Head of Infrastructure Advisory, and received the project-analysis handbook, the information-security policy and the role profile. On 16 September, your line manager, Julian Mark Ellison, Programme Director, explained that your first objectives were to prepare a baseline risk register for the North Vale Tram Extension, reconcile the contractor change log, and issue a fortnightly dashboard. These objectives were discussed at your one-to-one on 18 September and sent to you by email on 21 September.
On 30 September, you submitted a first risk-register draft. Julian's written feedback on 2 October identified six missing mitigation owners, two duplicate risk references and an unexplained difference of £48,600 between the change log and the dashboard. You met on 5 October and agreed to correct the register by 9 October and ask the commercial team for source documents. You completed those corrections on 9 October, and Julian recorded that the revised register was materially improved.
On 16 October, the dashboard was issued one working day late. You explained on 19 October that you had been waiting for a contractor response and had not escalated the delay. Julian agreed a communication rule: if an input was not received by noon on the day before issue, you would mark it as outstanding, state the effect and escalate it to him. At the 30 October one-to-one, you correctly applied that rule to the signalling workstream and received positive feedback for the clear explanation.
On 4 November, you sent the draft monthly dashboard to West Riding Transport Authority before Julian's review. The document contained a superseded passenger-demand figure of 12,400 journeys rather than the approved figure of 13,150. You recalled the email within the system, notified Julian at 11:20 a.m. and sent a correction at 12:05 p.m. The Authority confirmed that it had not relied on the figure. On 9 November, Julian explained the approval route again and provided the current source-data folder.
On 16 November, you delivered the November dashboard on time. It included a reconciliation table, owner names and a clear note that the station-access estimate remained provisional. On 23 November, Julian met you to discuss the repeated need for checking and the possibility that the role's senior level required more independent quality control. He invited you to provide any context, support request or adjustment information before a probation decision.
On 25 November, People Adviser Saira Louise Bennett sent you the review invitation, the role profile, the three objectives, the feedback dated 2 October, 19 October, 4 November and 23 November, the corrected dashboard and the probation procedure. The invitation explained that the possible outcomes were confirmation, extension or termination in accordance with the contract and law. It gave you five working days to provide written comments and told you that you could be accompanied at the meeting by a trade-union representative or workplace colleague in accordance with the procedure.
You replied on 30 November with a written statement and asked to bring Nadia Elise Morgan, Project Controls Lead, as your workplace companion. You said that the role was advertised as requiring strong analysis but that the Authority's source data had changed twice, that you had understood the first dashboard to be a working draft, and that your checking process had improved. You also explained that a recently diagnosed migraine condition had caused two disrupted mornings in October and asked for written priorities and a short screen break during long review sessions. You supplied a note from your GP only to the extent of confirming that an occupational-health discussion could be helpful; you did not consent to disclosure of your full medical record.
The meeting on 3 December was chaired by Miriam Rowe, who had not made the day-to-day feedback decisions. Julian attended to explain the objectives, Saira took notes, and Nadia accompanied you. You were invited to respond to each concern. You accepted that the 4 November figure was wrong but said that the correction process showed you had acted promptly. You explained that the first register's missing owners arose because the contractor had not named them and said you would have escalated earlier if the deadline rule had been in place. You asked for a written weekly priority list, a second reviewer for the next two dashboards and an occupational-health referral.
After the meeting, Miriam considered your statement, the documents, the improvement in November, the lack of financial or safety loss, the process you put in place after feedback, the seniority of the role and the support requests. She spoke with Saira about the adjustment request but did not seek your full medical records. This letter records the decision and the reasons.
2. Findings and assessment
The first objective, a reliable risk register, was initially below the expected standard because the 30 September draft omitted six mitigation owners and contained duplicate references. It was corrected by 9 October after feedback. I therefore find that the initial delivery did not meet the expected standard, but I also find that you responded constructively and that the revised work was satisfactory.
The second objective, reconciliation of commercial changes, was partly met. The unexplained £48,600 difference was identified by Julian and resolved after you obtained the source documents. You have since included a reconciliation table. The evidence does not establish that you ignored a known discrepancy; it shows that your checking method required strengthening.
The third objective, timely and accurate stakeholder dashboards, was not met consistently during October and early November. The 16 October dashboard was one working day late and the 4 November draft contained the superseded £12,400 figure. You corrected the latter within 45 minutes of being told and no decision was made on the wrong figure. The 16 November dashboard was on time and materially clearer. I therefore find a real but remediable concern about independent final checks and escalation, not a finding of dishonesty or gross misconduct.
I have considered your migraine disclosure and request for support. I do not make a medical finding and have not treated the two disrupted mornings as a performance failure. The employer will obtain your consent before requesting functional advice from occupational health. The People team will separately consider whether any reasonable adjustment is required under the Equality Act 2010. If a condition may be a disability, the assessment will not be postponed merely because there is no diagnosis in the personnel file.
3. Outcome and extension
Brackenwell proposes that your probation be extended for three months from 14 March 2027 to 13 June 2027, subject to your written agreement or an express contractual power permitting that extension. Unless that basis is established, the existing contractual probation end date remains 13 March 2027. If the extension is validly agreed or authorised, its purpose will be to assess the same core role requirements against the plan below, not to create an indefinite trial or reduce your existing rights. Your continuous employment date remains 14 September 2026. Your salary remains £54,600 per year, paid monthly, and your contractual hours remain 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., subject to the contract and any agreed adjustment.
If the extension is validly agreed or authorised by an express contractual power, you will receive normal pay and benefits during it, and holiday will continue to accrue under the contract. No conclusion has been reached about the employment relationship after 13 June 2027. On that basis, Brackenwell will hold a further review before 13 June 2027 and will confirm whether probation is passed or another contractual outcome is proposed, subject to any further extension being available only where a lawful and genuinely necessary process permits. If the extension is not agreed or authorised, Brackenwell will confirm any outcome by the existing contractual end date of 13 March 2027. If termination is considered, you will receive the process and notice required by the contract and law; this letter is not notice of termination.
4. Improvement and support plan
From 14 December 2026, Julian will send you a written priority list by 10:00 a.m. each Monday. You will confirm any missing information or competing deadline by noon that day. This is a communication aid, not a requirement to work unreasonable hours.
For the North Vale Tram Extension dashboard due on 18 December 2026, you will maintain a source log showing the document name, date, owner and figure used. You will complete the final reconciliation by 3:00 p.m. on 17 December and send the draft to Julian for review. From January, you will apply the same process independently to the dashboards due on 15 January, 29 January and 12 February 2027. The expected standard is an accurate, traceable dashboard issued by 4:00 p.m. on the agreed date, or a prompt written escalation identifying the missing input, impact and proposed next step.
For the risk register, you will update the owner and mitigation fields by the second working day after receiving a contractor change. If an owner is not supplied, you will record “owner pending” in the internal register, escalate it to Julian and do not present the field as complete. You will lead a 20-minute review with Nadia on 17 December and then use the approved checklist before each monthly issue.
Julian will hold a weekly one-to-one on Mondays, with a written note of objectives and feedback. He will review the next two dashboards before external issue. The review is a temporary quality safeguard and not evidence that you cannot perform the role. Saira will arrange an occupational-health referral after receiving your written consent and will discuss reasonable adjustments without requesting a diagnosis beyond what is necessary. Pending advice, you may take a five-minute screen break after each 50 minutes of concentrated review and may request written priorities at any time.
You must raise a workload, health, data or deadline concern promptly. You will not be penalised for seeking an adjustment, reporting a safety issue, raising a grievance or making a protected disclosure in good faith. The employer will review the plan at one-to-ones on 4 January, 1 February and 1 March 2027, and you may provide written comments for the final review.
5. Conduct, confidentiality and appeal
This outcome is a probation decision, not a disciplinary warning. You must continue to follow information-security, confidentiality, data-protection and approval procedures. The dashboard error must not be repeated deliberately or concealed. If a new conduct concern arises, it will be handled under the appropriate process, with a fair investigation and an opportunity to respond.
You may appeal this decision if you believe the process was unfair, significant evidence was overlooked, the findings were unreasonable, the proposed support is inadequate or the extension is disproportionate. Send a written appeal explaining your grounds to Rowan Vale, Senior Partner, Brackenwell Infrastructure LLP, 16 Quarry Square, Leeds LS1 5DR, by 16 December 2026, which is five working days after the date of this letter. Rowan was not involved in the review decision. You may be accompanied at the appeal hearing in accordance with the procedure. The appeal will be decided in writing and does not suspend the improvement plan unless the appeal manager directs otherwise.
Please contact Saira Bennett at people@brackenwell.example.test if you need the review notes, an adjustment discussion or help understanding the plan. If you disagree with a factual statement, identify it promptly so that it can be checked. A grievance, appeal and employment tribunal limitation period are separate matters; using one route does not automatically extend another.
Yours sincerely,
Miriam Celeste Rowe Partner and Head of Infrastructure Advisory For and on behalf of Brackenwell Infrastructure LLP
Signature: ____________________ Date: 9 December 2026
Employee acknowledgement
I, Amelia Rose Fenwick, confirm that I received this probation review letter on 9 December 2026. My signature confirms receipt and discussion, not agreement with every finding or waiver of any right. I understand the proposed extension dates, the requirement for written agreement or an express contractual power, the improvement plan and the appeal deadline.
Employee signature: ____________________ Date: 9 December 2026
Witness, Saira Louise Bennett, People Adviser: ____________________ Date: 9 December 2026