I have been suspended

doodlesmum

sugartooth wrote: »

A bit much...? Even if OP can avoid enhanced CRB checks in the future, there's still that dismissed for gross misconduct on her record. Don't think the police will be involved providing OP pays the lady back and apologises sincerely.

Dont think any apology would cut it ,it takes a person a lot to put their trust in their support worker.Trust needs to be earned,this person abused the trust they had gained,no amount of apologizing is going to repair the damage.

purple.sarah

BobQ wrote: »

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

Swearing is a swear word, veiled swearing is a swear word with one letter replaced by a symbol or otherwise misspelled to get around the filter. What didn't you understand?

Snuggles

marybelle01 wrote: »

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.

This actually isn't the case, any referrals made to the ISA are treated in exactly the same way, a police referral is not considered more "serious" than an employer referral, and there is no such thing as a "more serious bar". The miminum length of time that someone is barred depends upon their age at the time they are barred (it is one year for under 18s, five years for under 25s, and 10 years for everyone else). It makes no difference where the referral comes from.

Also, a police referral wouldn't "bring the ISA down on her employer". The only power the ISA has in relation to employers is the power to request information about individuals who have been referred. It is not the ISA's role to regulate or investigate employers in any way.

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!

It is extremely unlikely that the police would be able to take any action in a case such as this unless the vulnerable person lacked capacity to make an informed decision. It may seem unpalatable, but it's true. I have seen far worse examples of abuse NFA'd by the police becuase the vulnerable person consented to what happened (even though a reasonable person might think they had been exploited). Just because someone is classed as vulnerable, does not mean they are considered incapable of deciding for themselves what to do with their own money (unless they lack capacity). Obviously borrowing money from a service user is likely to lead to dismissal for gross misconduct, but where the service user has capacity, there is very little the police can do (unless it is clearly theft of course).

In a case such as this, it is likely the individual will be referred to the ISA, however, as another poster pointed out, it would not necessarily result in the person being barred from care work. The ISA will look at all the circumstances, and take any mitigating factors into account, and decide, based on all the information, whether it is proportionate to bar the individual from working with vulnerable groups. Barring someone is a blunt instrument which prevents them from taking up a wide range of employment. A person is not barred just to punish them for what they have already done, but if it is considered there is a demonstrable risk that they might cause harm again in future should they be allowed to continue working with vulnerable groups.

jbreckmckye

For what it's worth, it doesn't sound like the OP intended to steal anything, and given that this happened a 'couple of times', it seems unlikely that these were large sums. In those circumstances, I could easily believe that repayment might slip someone's mind.

Nevertheless, this is inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour, and after an incident like this, the OP's relationship with their employer (and certainly the customer) will be permanently tainted. There is no way they can keep their job. Even if they don't end up on a protection register, the lack of reference will seriously harm the OP's employment prospects.

dandelionclock30

^ No it wont they can easily get round that by falsifying one.