I have been suspended

Uncertain

robpw2 wrote: »

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

No, of course not.

However somebody has to balance the Daily Mail reader lynch mob mentality!

In any case, right from the beginning I have said that her behaviour was unprofessional and amounts to gross misconduct.

marybelle01

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!

Whilst this may sound entirely logical - and I accept that it has an outside chance of being possible - I really doubt it. For a simple fact. If she continues to deny it and the service user continues to assert it, then the employer will call the Police. I would, and so would any other employer in a care setting where financial abuse of a vulnerable person is involved. Because it is abuse - not because it is theft. Now it is entirely possible that the OP is a hard faced c*w who is able to lie convincingly to the police. But I doubt it because there aren't all that many people who are that good at lying! As soon as the Police are involved it all gets kicked up a level - they will also inform the ISA, and a police referral is even more serious than an employer referral. With an employer referral, whilst it is unlikley ISA would do nothing, it is also unlikely that the OP would be barred for life since the ISA can and do bar for shorter periods. The Police become involved and a more serious bar is likely, and it may even bring the ISA down on the employer - at which point retaining her job is the least of her worries because the employer will do everything in their power to bury her for ever.

Remember, criminal proceedings do not have to allege theft - abuse of a vulnerable person is a lot more serious as a criminal charge, and if the OP thinks she didn't get a sympathetic hearing here, just wait and see what kind of sympathethic hearing she gets from a jury of her peers, especially after the "poor blind lady" has been dragged on to the stand!

She may decide to brazen it out because things couldn't get worse. They could. They could get a lot worse.

Uncertain

marybelle01 wrote: »

Remember, criminal proceedings do not have to allege theft - abuse of a vulnerable person is a lot more serious as a criminal charge, and if the OP thinks she didn't get a sympathetic hearing here, just wait and see what kind of sympathethic hearing she gets from a jury of her peers, especially after the "poor blind lady" has been dragged on to the stand!

I agree that is very relevant and is well outside my area.

However, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, how do you prove abuse in this case unless you can prove that the loan took place? Obviously pressuring a vulnerable person for a loan (even if it was never given) would be abuse in itself but surely even harder to prove?

marybelle01

Uncertain wrote: »

I agree that is very relevant and is well outside my area.

However, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, how do you prove abuse in this case unless you can prove that the loan took place? Obviously pressuring a vulnerable person for a loan (even if it was never given) would be abuse in itself but surely even harder to prove?

This is where you are missing the point. I am afraid it is called "hard-nosed social care manager" and "even harder nosed Police officers". I don't have to prove anything. If the person denies it and I don't believe them then I hand it over to the Police and let them prove it. In this circumstance my duty is the protection of the client and not the protection of the employee. It is one of the rare occasions where I would have no qualms and no consideration about being "a good manager". As I said - it is just possible someone could be hard faced enough to lie to the police and get away with it, but most people crack under police questioning. They'll admit it. And having already denied it to the police, that underpins the intent to deprive and financial abuse.

If MSE posters in general aren't that sympathetic, do you think police officers are more sympathetic and gentle? They also, like people here, have mothers, fathers, grandparents etc. Many of them will know older and vulnerable people from their work - and know them most often as victims. Sympathy isn't something they have an abundance of at any time...

I have only ever had to once do this - in fact apart from this one occasion, the worst such cases I have had have been a few slapped wrists for chocolates and flowers (that is stupidity!) and an occasional warning for gift vouchers. It's rare - but there are an awful lot of carers and support workers around, so not as rare as you'd hope. Unfortunately, yet understandably, as someone else her observed, some people are so grateful to their support workers that they would willing give them gifts of all sorts. It is not at all unusual to find that small gifts of money have been left in wills (and every single one must be declared and investigated). For this reason the rules have to be absolute - gifts / loans are not permitted, and it is financial abuse to take them - offered willingly or not.

Sambucus_Nigra

Uncertain wrote: »

No, of course not.

However somebody has to balance the Daily Mail reader lynch mob mentality!

In any case, right from the beginning I have said that her behaviour was unprofessional and amounts to gross misconduct.

Oh get over yourself!

BobQ

As you clearly realise you have been exceptionally stupid.

If I were the relative of the vulnerable persons you have borrowed money from I would be pressing the police to prosecute you and creating merry hell with your employer demaning your dismissal.

Even trying to be objective, I find it very difficult to find any defence for what you admit you have done. You may be able to submit a statement that demonstrates your ignorance and extreme naievity such that you cast some doubt on your motivation. But realistically I think that you will be dismissed for gross misconduct and perhaps face police prosecution.

Regarding assistance from your union which you joined a few months after you had committed these offences, if your local representative is willing to give you any significant amount of time for advice I would be surprised. It would be very unfair on members who have actually paid their subscriptions, so that they can benefit from such advice in the future, if someone joined in circumstances where it was reasonable to assume they knew they had done something like this.

dandelionclock30

I think the OP just needs to hold their hands up and say what went on.They are not going to get another CRB checked job anyway.
I know a man who fleeced an old lady of a lot of her savings, he said he didnt but pleaded guilty and he got 3 years in prison. The issue was that she was vulnerable because she was elderly.
The Judge called him all the names under the sun and there was an article about him in the regional newspaper. OP is in a really bad position and its worse than just getting dismissed because any abuse is really disgracefull.

BobQ

purple.sarah wrote: »

Swearing, including veiled swearing, is actually against the MSE forum rules. Uncertain was just trying to tell you that but since you wouldn't listen I've reported your post.

What is the difference between swearing and veiled swearing? Is it like the difference between what actually happened and what you think happened?

antonic

This from todays Liverpool Echo

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/08/17/abbeycare-worker-from-toxteth-jailed-for-stealing-from-disabled-client-100252-31640164/

This should be a warning to the OP about what may happen...

doodlesmum

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Thats irrelevant, doesnt matter if it was 10p or 10K.
The issue is that carers/support workers etc are not allowed to ask service users to lend them money as its abuse of a power relationship.

Absolutely totally agree with this.I am a support worker,i support adults with learning difficulties.When you are a support worker you are in a position of extreme trust you never ever abuse this trust.You say you intended to pay it back well i"m sorry you should never "borrowed" it in the first place,you abused your position of trust .In my eyes it is financial abuse .Sorry there is no sympathy here.You need to repay the lady back and after that well your employer and your lady"s family plus the police make the decisions.