I have been suspended

MiddyMum

I want to know if the OP is going to pay this lady back her money.

kerrypn

MiddyMum wrote: »

I want to know if the OP is going to pay this lady back her money.

So do I. Hope she is made to, would be interested to know also how much we are talking about. I don't think we are taking tens or twenties.

OP also posted here:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4125635

MiddyMum

kerrypn wrote: »

So do I. Hope she is made to, would be interested to know also how much we are talking about. I don't think we are taking tens or twenties.

OP also posted here:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4125635

What gets me the most is that she is more concerned with losing her job than she is paying back the money she took from this vulnerable person. Terrible! I have just seen the original post on this thread " Shouldn't have posted it anyway" Blimey don't know what she was expecting from us really. She has shown no intent to pay, a person with half a heart would at least get that sorted out first and then just deal with the consequences. But then a morally sound person wouldn't have taken money from a patient anyway. No excuse for it, no matter how desperate you are.

kerrypn

MiddyMum wrote: »

What gets me the most is that she is more concerned with losing her job than she is paying back the money she took from this vulnerable person. Terrible! I have just seen the original post on this thread " Shouldn't have posted it anyway" Blimey don't know what she was expecting from us really. She has shown no intent to pay, a person with half a heart would at least get that sorted out first and then just deal with the consequences. But then a morally sound person wouldn't have taken money from a patient anyway. No excuse for it, no matter how desperate you are.

You are so right. She shouldn't HAVE DONE IT!

I hate the way that some people might read this and judge all carers on it.

I hope the lady gets all her money back and costs, and the OP is dealt with appropriately. There is no excuse for it really.

Errata

MiddyMum wrote: »

What gets me the most is that she is more concerned with losing her job than she is paying back the money she took from this vulnerable person. Terrible! I have just seen the original post on this thread " Shouldn't have posted it anyway" Blimey don't know what she was expecting from us really. She has shown no intent to pay, a person with half a heart would at least get that sorted out first and then just deal with the consequences. But then a morally sound person wouldn't have taken money from a patient anyway. No excuse for it, no matter how desperate you are.

Did it not occur to you to read the OP you were responding to before you did so?
A closer reading will lead you to understand that trhe person in question was a client, not a patient.

MiddyMum

Errata wrote: »

Did it not occur to you to read the OP you were responding to before you did so?
A closer reading will lead you to understand that trhe person in question was a client, not a patient.

Well if you read the entire thread, you would see that I was one of the first people to reply! A client, patient...blah blah Shoot me! I am still a morally sound person, that wouldn't take money from a vulnerable person.

Uncertain

kerrypn wrote: »

I hope the lady gets all her money back and costs, and the OP is dealt with appropriately. There is no excuse for it really.

I'm sure everybody hopes the lady gets her money back and that everybody agrees this should never have happened.

However the crazy thing is that all these "safeguarding" measures (which failed to prevent the problem in the first place) could actually hinder the repayment if the OP is as dishonest as many of you seem to believe.

Let us hope that is not the case and the the OP admits her mistake and makes arrangements to repay (assuming she has the means to do so). However, she is pretty much guaranteed to lose her job so where will the money come from?

I struggle to see that this meets the criminal test of theft (based on what we have been told) but even if it did this will be of limited help. The criminal justice system does little to ensure that victimes of crime are properly compensated. It may punish the offender but that can sometimes hinder any real restitution.

Another possibility is that the OP will simply continue to deny that she was leant the money. Assuming that we are talking about a hundred or two in cash on a couple of occasions this could be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If we are talking of substantially more or if there is a paper trail then it obviously becomes easier.

Obviously her employers don't need a criminal standard of proof to dismiss, only a reasonable belief. However an accusation from a "vulnerable" person that is flatly denied by an employee with a "clean" record presents a difficult situation.

None of this is very palatable based on what we have been told but it, frankly, far more realistic than much of the chest beating we have read in this tread.

Sorry!

kerrypn

Uncertain, in terms of the criminal justice system what you are saying may well be correct.

However we are talking about safeguarding proceedure and that is dealt with differently.

I can see no difficulty in a vulnerable person making an accusation-this will have to be dealt with according to proceedure by an outside agency.

robpw2

Uncertain wrote: »

I'm sure everybody hopes the lady gets her money back and that everybody agrees this should never have happened.

However the crazy thing is that all these "safeguarding" measures (which failed to prevent the problem in the first place) could actually hinder the repayment if the OP is as dishonest as many of you seem to believe.

Let us hope that is not the case and the the OP admits her mistake and makes arrangements to repay (assuming she has the means to do so). However, she is pretty much guaranteed to lose her job so where will the money come from?

I struggle to see that this meets the criminal test of theft (based on what we have been told) but even if it did this will be of limited help. The criminal justice system does little to ensure that victimes of crime are properly compensated. It may punish the offender but that can sometimes hinder any real restitution.

Another possibility is that the OP will simply continue to deny that she was leant the money. Assuming that we are talking about a hundred or two in cash on a couple of occasions this could be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If we are talking of substantially more or if there is a paper trail then it obviously becomes easier.

Obviously her employers don't need a criminal standard of proof to dismiss, only a reasonable belief. However an accusation from a "vulnerable" person that is flatly denied by an employee with a "clean" record presents a difficult situation.

None of this is very palatable based on what we have been told but it, frankly, far more realistic than much of the chest beating we have read in this tread.

Sorry!

did you post this whole scenario under another username so you could come on here and "defend" her

Uncertain

kerrypn wrote: »

However we are talking about safeguarding proceedure and that is dealt with differently.

I can see no difficulty in a vulnerable person making an accusation-this will have to be dealt with according to proceedure by an outside agency.

Indeed but if this is flatly denied it doesn't get the lady her money back.

The "safeguarding" have no powers of criminal investigation, they would have to ask the police to help with this. As I said, a few hundred in cash that was never banked would be hard to trace. I agree the type of case would attract a higher priority than a similar (dishonest ??) loan between two blokes in a pub but I doubt it would get more than a few hours work unless the sums were substantial.

Obviously they could stop her working in this field again (and rightly so) but that doesn't get the money back.