[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

Utilising the evidence from the employer, the DBS considered that that there was sufficient evidence for it to find, on the balance of probabilities, that AA had stolen £100 out of AO’s cash withdrawal on 11 April 2020. It took into account that AA was AO’s key worker, and she was working with AO on 11 April 2020. It considered the entry in AO’s cashbook recording that £200 had been withdrawn from AO’s bank account [103] when the cash withdrawal of £300 was recorded on AO’s bank statement for that day [93], leaving £100 unaccounted for. This cashbook entry was initialled “AA”. There was no evidence, such as receipts or other cashbook entries, to show that the missing £100 had been used to pay any of AO’s bills. In addition, the DBS took into account a corresponding entry in AO’s daybook on 11 April 2020, which was initialled “AA”, stating that AO had been accompanied to the bank to make a withdrawal on that occasion:

“[AO] was supported down to Sainsbury to buy her newspaper and withdraw some money and went to the pay point to pay her bills. [signed] AA[rest of first name]” [105]

In the November 2020 disciplinary meeting with AW, on behalf of her employer, the Appellant denied involvement in all the thefts. She confirmed that the initials next to the cashbook entry for AO on 11 April 2020 were hers [80]. She stated that it was typical practice for one member of staff on duty to withdraw cash with a service user and then ask a second member of staff to write up the transaction in the daybook. She stated that when she was asked to record such a transaction, her previous practice was to put the initials of the staff member who made the withdrawal next to the entry in the cashbook, but she then started to write her own initials next to the entry to show that she had written it.

One month later, in the December 2020 disciplinary hearing, the Appellant stated that she thought someone was setting her up but she did not say who might be responsible for this, or explain why anyone would want to set her up. She pointed out the wording in the daybook entry, which in her view stated that AO was supported to withdraw cash and pay her bills on 11 April 2020, but not that it was AA who had specifically supported her to do so. This, she asserted, indicated that she had written the entry in the daybook rather than having completed the action being recorded in the entry.

In her October 2021 representations to the DBS, the Appellant denied the thefts, repeating the common practice for one member of staff to support the service user to withdraw money and for another member of staff to write it in the daybook. She reiterated that the entry in AO’s daybook did not identify her as the exact member of staff who supported AO to withdraw money from her account on 11 April 2020. She stated that she had not been given the actual daybook to look at and read, therefore she had not been able to inspect the entry for accuracy.

It was on the basis of this evidence, having considered the representations of the Appellant, that the DBS determined that on 11 April 2020, the Appellant had accompanied AO to the bank to withdraw £300 (per the note in AO’s daybook), recorded only £200 as having been withdrawn (in AO’s cashbook) and kept the unaccounted £100.