[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

On the whole, and in relation to this allegation more specifically, the panel did not find the Appellant’s oral evidence to be credible. Her responses were short, inconsistent with previous accounts given throughout the disciplinary meetings and representations, and there were inconsistencies within her oral evidence itself. The Appellant’s account in relation to this allegation had increased in detail over time thus giving the impression that as time progressed, she was creating more reasons as to why the evidence against her was wrong.For example, during the disciplinary process with her employer, the Appellant denied the theft and accepted that the initials “AA”, noted against the entry in the cashbook on 11 April 2020, were hers. By the time she was giving evidence to the tribunal, the Appellant asserted that the initials “AA” next to the entry in the cashbook were written differently to how she writes them. While the Appellant had attempted to highlight to the tribunal that her method of writing “AA” was different to the way that “AA” had been written on the cashbook on 11 April 2020, it was noted that the first time the Appellant had mentioned this was in oral evidence at her appeal hearing. The Appellant explained this by saying that she had only noticed it after her disciplinary meetings. However, the tribunal did not accept this explanation, finding it strange that the Appellant would not mention such a point sooner, for example in support of her grounds of appeal, rather than leaving it until the appeal hearing before mentioning it for the first time.

The Appellant then went further to allege that the record of the disciplinary meeting in November 2020 was incorrect and denied that she had in fact accepted that the initials next to the 11 April 2020 entry in the cashbook were hers. The record of the disciplinary meeting states [80]:

The Appellant did not elaborate or explain her responses, where such elaboration and/or explanation would have given her account some credibility. It was difficult to be persuaded by her arguments in the absence of such elaboration. For example, when stating that she had been framed for these allegations, the Appellant did not give any reason for this, give any suggestion as to who may have framed her, or who, in the alternative, may have stolen the money. Similarly, the Appellant offered no alternative as to who may have written the initials “AA” next to the cashbook entry for 11 April 2020 and gave no suggestion as to who might have done this so as to “frame” her. Late in her oral evidence, the Appellant stated that there was an agency member of staff working that day and suggested that he/she may have written her initials in the cashbook. Again, there was no explanation as to why the agency staff member might do this, or who he/she was. Ultimately, the tribunal did not accept this as a credible explanation given that this was the first time the Appellant had suggested that an agency staff member had been working on that day and given that there was no note of an agency staff member on the staff rota.

The Appellant also told the tribunal that she could not have been the person responsible for accompanying AO to withdraw the cash on 11 April 2020 as her shift started late in the day, and she would not have been taking a service user out at that time. She stated in evidence that she started her shift on 11 April 2020 at 5pm. The tribunal also did not consider her claim to start her shift at 5pm, rather that the listed 3pm, to be credible either. The change was not recorded on the rota next to her name, it was not recorded next to the other member of staff who was to cover the extra two hours, and there was no supporting evidence as to her house hunting which left her late for shift. Her assertion that she had informally agreed that late start with her manager was not found to be credible by the panel as there was nothing other than the Appellant’s word to support that account, and the panel found the Appellant’s word to lack credibility overall. It was the first time she had mentioned the late start to that particular shift. Again, the panel reasoned that if she had started her shift late, such that she was less likely to have taken a service user out to get cash at that time, then it would have been raised during at least one of the two disciplinary meetings. However, her change of shift was mentioned for the first time in oral evidence at her appeal hearing.

In relation to the daybook entry, which the DBS found to be supporting evidence for this allegation, the Appellant asserted that it did not state who had supported AO to withdraw the cash. She said she had simply recorded the fact that someone had supported AO to withdraw cash, but she did not know who. The tribunal did not consider her explanation to be credible given that only two people could have supported AO to make the withdrawal, according to the rota. The Appellant must have known who took AO and could have advised her employer of this sooner, which would have caused the employer to investigate other members of the team. The same can be said of the Appellant’s acceptance of her initials in the cashbook - had she not done so, further enquiries could have been made to widen the investigation accordingly.

For these reasons, the tribunal found that the Appellant’s evidence did not contradict the evidence of the DBS to such an extent that we could conclude that it was mistaken to find this allegation to be proven on the balance of probabilities. By adding to her account over time, in the manner outlined above, the Appellant had essentially weakened her own credibility. Coupled with the absence of a suggestion and a reason as to who and why the Appellant was being framed, it was hard to be persuaded by this assertion. There is no error of fact in relation to the first allegation as found to be proven by the DBS.