[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

Again, on the evidence provided by AA’s employer, the DBS considered that that there was sufficient evidence for it to find, on the balance of probabilities, that AA had attended the workplace on 31 October 2020, removed the cashbooks which recorded the questionable transactions, and tried to damage or dispose of them.

This allegation was based upon the informal written statement of another member of staff, FOA, sent by email to the Director of Service, AW, as requested, on 2 November 2020. FOA stated that he was working the late shift on 30 October 2020, followed by the early shift on 31 October 2020 and was therefore the sleep-in person overnight between both shifts. He had been working on the service users’ cashbooks during the sleep-in shift, and had finished this at around midnight on 30 October 2024. When he had finished, he returned the cashbooks to the cupboard in the sleep-in room where they were stored, along with receipts, cash, file and other documents.

At around 7.24pm on Friday 30^th October 2020, during his shift, FOA received a call from AA to say that she was coming to the workplace to collect a certificate which was in her bag in the sleep-in room. At around 7.13am on Saturday 31 October 2020, AA arrived at the workplace and immediately went into AO’s flat where she retrieved her bag. She then went to the sleep-in room, with the bag, and before she entered, she put on some gloves. She opened the bag and could not find her certificate in there. She started to search the sleep-in room and opened the cupboard where the cashbooks were stored. FOA asked her why she was searching everywhere in the sleep-in room. About three minutes later, AA said she had found the certificate and said she would take her bag home to wash her clothes, as the washing machines at the workplace were faulty. AA then left the building to take her bag to the car and said she would be back in a few minutes. FOA sat on the bed and waited for her to return. She returned to the sleep-in room at approximately 7.40am, where she chatted to FOA for about two minutes about when she was next at work. FOA states that he then accompanied AA to the door to say goodbye.

When FOA returned to the sleep-in room, to tidy up and to lock the cupboard, he realised that the cashbooks had disappeared. He immediately called AA, asking her to come back as the cashbooks were gone. AA returned about four minutes later, denying that she knew anything about the missing cashbooks. She suggested that perhaps another service user, GA, had taken them outside and thrown them away. She suggested searching outside to see if the cashbooks could be found. FOA states that he started crying, begging AA not to get him in trouble and to “bring the books back” [89]. AA suggested GA was responsible once again. FOA then realised that it was unlikely to have been GA as he had gone to bed before FOA had worked on the books on the evening of 30 October 2020 and had not been in the sleep-in room after that. FOA followed AA outside to look for the cashbooks. He found the cashbooks in the outside bin, soaked in water.

FOA then called his manager (EA) as he believed that AA had deliberately wanted to get him in trouble. As he was calling EA, AA repeatedly asked FOA not to say that she had been at the workplace. She suggested writing in the daybook that he had found the cashbooks in the bin. FOA was advised by EA to call the “on call” person, which he did, and they informed the Senior Manager, MOK. At approximately 8.15am, FOA explained to MOK (on the phone) what had happened. He repeated it to AW on the phone shortly after and told her that AA was still at the workplace at this time. AW spoke to AA over the phone and then told FOA to ask AA to leave the workplace and to tell her if AA refused to do so. AA left the building but remained outside so FOA called AW to let her know this, as requested.

The police arrived at the workplace at approximately 9am, and AW arrived shortly after that. FOA gave a statement to police, who saw the destroyed cashbooks and took pictures of them. The police instructed FOA that no one should touch the cashbooks until the police returned. AW told FOA that AA had been suspended day before, on 30 October 2020. AW also wrote this in the communication book along with an instruction to call 999 if AA was found at the workplace.

FOA stated in subsequent email correspondence with AW, on 1 December 2020, that AA called him at 7.13am on 31 October 2020. He clarified that AO did not leave her flat that morning and another named service user did not come upstairs near the sleep-in room, nor had they entered the sleep-in room that morning.

AA emailed her statement regarding the incident on 31 October 2020, to AW, on 3 November 2020. In it she stated that she called FOA to say that she had left her certificate at work, and he said to come in and look for it (date and time of this call was not stated). When she arrived at the workplace at 7.50am on 31 October 2020, FOA was in the sleep-in room, so she met him there. She explained that she needed to get her bag from AO’s room because her medication was in it. She said that she got the bag and set it on a chair which was beside the sleep-in room door. She then started to look for her certificate in the sleep-in room. FOA was there too. He had helped her to pull the bed out to look for it. AA stated that FOA suggested to check the cupboard (where the cashbooks were stored) and AA found the certificate in there. As she was making her way downstairs to leave, FOA emerged from the sleep-in room and asked if AA had seen the cashbooks. AA said she hadn’t seen them and asked FOA if he wanted to check her bag before she left. He said “no” and asked AA to help him look for them. AA pointed out to FOA that he knew she hadn’t left the building. AA stated that FOA was shouting and was scared. She tried to calm him down. They looked outside and found the cashbooks in the bin. FOA said AA could leave, so she did. As she was leaving, FOA was shouting that the cashbooks were wet and stained. AA stated that FOA then called EA. Thereafter AW called and spoke to AA. She asked AA what she was doing at the workplace. AW told AA to leave the workplace. AA sat in her car, crying, as she wasn’t feeling herself after the incident, and couldn’t drive until she felt better.

At her investigation meeting in November 2020, the Appellant stated that she was on a three-month course of antibiotics which she took once per week, on a Saturday. Her weekly tablet was in her bag which she had left in the workplace. She was expecting to be working the Saturday after her suspension and therefore had left her bag with her medication there so she would not forget to take it. She had also left her certificate for manual handling at the workplace, and she needed it to scan it to her university. She did not mention the fact that her things were at the workplace after she was suspended because she forgot. She stated that she remembered they were there on the evening of Friday 30 October and that is when she called FOA. She went to the workplace on the morning of Saturday 31 October 2020 to collect her things.

She stated that she arrived at the workplace, at 7.30am, and not 7.50am as previously stated. She went to where she left her bag (did not say where that was) and put it on the chair in the sleep-in room where FOA was, and they chatted. She told FOA about her certificate and they looked for it together. It was in the cupboard where the cashbooks were stored. She said that she left and as she was about to open the front door to leave the building, FOA called her to say that the cashbooks were missing. She stated that she had not left the building. She asked FOA if he wanted to check her bag and he said, “No”. She told him to calm down and said they should look for it. As they looked together, they went to the opposite block of flats and on the way back, FOA opened the black bin outside, where he found the cashbook. The cashbook was wet and FOA was shivering and shouting. He called EA on the phone, who told him to call the “on call” person. AA said that she went to the car where she felt unsettled.

AA stated that FOA was with her at all times when she searched the cupboard in the sleep-in room. She denied putting on gloves before searching for her certificate but accepted that she had put them on when looking for the cashbooks. She denied taking a phone call from FOA about the cashbooks going missing – she said he had told her face-to-face as she was about to leave the building. It was pointed out to her that the call log of FOA’s phone indicated that he had called her at 7.42am on 31 October 2020 which must have been that call he described when she was outside the building. She admitted telling FOA not to tell anyone she had been there because she was not on shift and shouldn’t have been there when she wasn’t working. She denied leaving the property twice, as alleged by FOA. She was unable to explain how the cashbooks had gone missing or been damaged. She stated that she got on well with everyone. She said that one of the service users, “I”, was awake and came upstairs. AO was also awake and came out of her flat. AA did not see GA (the service user who had a history of taking things and throwing them away).

At the disciplinary hearing on 10 December 2020, AA denied taking the cashbooks, denied damaging them and she denied throwing them in the bin. She stated that she went to the workplace on Saturday 31 October 2020, arriving at around 7.30am, although she couldn’t be specific. She went there to get her certificate and her medication. She takes her medication every Saturday and was supposed to work that Saturday but had been suspended. The medication was in her bag which was at the workplace - she leaves it in a cupboard in AO’s flat. She denied putting gloves on when she arrived at the workplace but accepted that she put gloves on when she was looking for the cashbooks as she didn’t know what she would be touching. She explained that she didn’t tell FOA that she was looking for her medication as that was a confidential matter.

AA stated that when she got to the workplace, she went upstairs and chatted to FOA, telling him that she was there to get her certificate and her bag. She looked for the certificate and found it. She then said she was going to get her bag from AO’s room, which she did, and put it on the chair beside the door of the sleep-in room. She said that she was chatting to FOA and as she said she was leaving, he said he was looking for the cashbook. AA asked if he wanted to check her bag but he said, “No”. They looked for the book, found it in the black bin outside, and AA “went out”. FOA then asked AA to come back and he showed her the wet and torn cashbook. AA pointed out that he hadn’t seen her with water or with food. She told FOA to calm down. He called EA on the phone and then called the “on call” person.

AA stated that she was not happy with EA, her line manager, who she stated was on a “witch hunt” against her, checking everything that AA does. AA gave an example: EA was questioning the fact that AA told AO that her family was taking over her finances. AA felt, that as AO’s key worker, she should be the person to tell AO. AO was upset at this news. AA recoded the conversation in AO’s daybook [106]. AA stated that EA, despite undertaking checks for about a year from 5 October 2019 to 1 September 2020, had never noticed a discrepancy in AO’s accounts before. AA then accepted that this was the first of EA’s checks and discrepancies had been noted. She pointed out that FOA was with her the whole time she was at the workplace and would have seen her lift five cashbooks. She questioned why FOA was working on the cashbooks until midnight on 30 October 2020. She said that while she was not pointing fingers at him, it was not usual to work on the cashbooks so late.

In her provisional representations to the DBS dated 23 September 2021, AA stated that she had asked for a copy of the cashbooks concerned, asserting that when they were seen, everyone would know that she did not take the books or attempt to destroy them. In her subsequent representations of 11 October 2021, the Appellant reiterated that she did not take or attempt to destroy the cashbooks and provided no further information, other than to say that the allegation was based on anecdotal evidence of other members of staff.