[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

The Appellant worked as a support worker for an organisation that provides support and housing for autistic people, people with learning disabilities, and those with mental health needs (“the employer”) from 17 November 2008 (approximately 12 years). At the time of the allegations in question, the Appellant was working at one of the employer’s supported living establishments (the “workplace”). One of her duties was key worker for AO, a 60 year old service user with autism and a learning disability who had been supported by the employer since 2009. AO lived in her own flat within the workplace and was able to do many things without staff support. Amongst those things that AO was supported with, AO was assisted by staff members to manage her own finances. Members of staff, including the Appellant, would accompany AO to the cash machine to withdraw cash and to pay her expenses. When this happened, staff were expected to enter the details of the bank withdrawal into a cashbook. Once withdrawn, the cash was retained in a purse for AO, and any sum(s) of money which were removed from the purse, for example for AO’s groceries or to pay a bill, was also recorded in the cashbook and a receipt was retained. The daily movements and activities of each service user was recorded by staff in a daybook – cash withdrawals would also be recorded here as this formed part of the service user’s day. The cashbooks for all the service users, including the cashbook for AO, were retained safely in a lockable cupboard in the staff “sleep-in” room at the workplace.

On 25 October 2020, a Santander bank account statement was received for AO’s account and the project leader for the workplace (EA) noted some discrepancies. She found that for some cash withdrawals, the amount withdrawn from the account was greater than the amount recorded in AO’s cashbook and some withdrawals had not been recorded in the cashbook at all. EA noted that the Appellant’s initials (“AA”) were next to the recordings where the discrepancies were noted, and the Appellant had been working on all the days that the suspicious transactions had occurred.

On 29 October 2020, the employer’s Director of Services (AW) asked the Appellant to attend head office on 30 October 2020 at 4pm to discuss the issue. The matter was also reported to the police, the Care Quality Commission and Lewisham Social Services. After the meeting on 30 October 2020, AW handed the Appellant a suspension letter [18] informing her that she was suspended on full pay, pending the completion of an investigation into the allegations of financial abuse.

EA notified AW that same day, that some of the cashbook entries for the suspicious transactions, including one on 11 April 2020, had been changed since she had initially reviewed the entries. EA was then informed, by another member of staff (FOA), that the Appellant had entered the workplace early on the morning of 31 October 2020, claiming to look for medication and a certificate, and after her visit, he found cashbooks relating to five different service users, including AO, in a bin outside the property. The cashbooks had been soaked with water and stained with food. The police were called, but the Appellant had left by the time they arrived. The police took the cashbooks as evidence. Although he did not see the Appellant take the cashbooks, FOA believed that she had done so while she was searching the cupboard, where the cashbooks were kept, for her personal items. FOA said he had worked on the cashbooks the evening before her visit and had returned them to the cupboard, all in order, before the Appellant had arrived on the morning of 31 October 2020.

After this information was received, the investigation was expanded to consider whether the Appellant had breached the terms of her suspension by attending the workplace on 31 October 2020 and whether she had been responsible for damaging the cashbooks which were evidence in the investigation. Statements were taken from FOA on 2 November 2020 [19-20] and from the Appellant on 3 November 2020 [21], regarding the incident on 31 October 2020.

On 17 November 2020, AW conducted a disciplinary meeting with the Appellant. A written record of the discussion was prepared by the employer [22-29]. The Appellant denied taking any money, denied taking/damaging the cashbooks and denied breaching the terms of her suspension. She admitted attending the workplace on 31 October but only to locate a certificate and her medication. She also accepted that the initials “AA” were hers.

The investigation subsequently concluded, in a report dated 2 December 2020 [69-108], that the Appellant was the only member of staff working on each shift when one of the 16 questionable transactions had taken place. On three of the 16 transactions, AO’s cashbook recorded a different (lower) amount than that shown as having been withdrawn on AO’s bank statement, and the initials “AA” were next to these entries. For one particular withdrawal, on 11 April 2020, the initials “AA” were noted next to an entry in AO’s daybook (the record of AO’s daily activities) that AO had been supported to withdraw cash from her account that day. On the balance of probabilities, it was determined that the Appellant was responsible for the inaccurate transaction entries in AO’s cashbook dated 19 October 2019, 11 April 2020 and 30 May 2020, and that she had taken AO to withdraw money on 11 April 2020. It was concluded that the Appellant had stolen the money which had been withdrawn but had not been recorded in the cashbook on these occasions. It was also determined that the Appellant had altered the 11 April 2020 daybook entry, probably on 29 October 2020, following AW’s call to invite her to the office the following day, in order to disguise AO’s movements to withdraw cash from her account. The Appellant did not dispute her attendance at the workplace on 31 October 2020 and AW found that to amount of a breach of her suspension. It was determined that the Appellant had damaged the cashbooks while she was at the workplace on 31 October 2020 in order to destroy evidence against her relating to the cash withdrawals.

On 10 December 2020, the Appellant attended a disciplinary hearing conducted by the Investigation Officer, AL, at the employer’s head office. She had been provided with the investigation report in advance and had been given the opportunity to submit evidence to be considered at the hearing. The hearing was recorded, and a written record was prepared by the employer [109-119]. The Appellant denied wrongdoing throughout the hearing. The employer’s findings were upheld by the disciplinary panel.

On 7 January 2021, the Appellant was summarily dismissed by the employer for gross misconduct. She appealed the decision, but it was not changed on appeal.