A SCOTS carer has been struck off after spending thousands of pounds on gambling sites through a care user’s bank account.
Lorna Allardyce was employed as a housing support officer at Argowan Properties Ltd in Ayr, Ayrshire when she took control of a service user’s bank account between October 2020 and March 2021.
Allardyce was found to have used the account to deposit £7,500 from gambling sites such as Paddy Power and Tombola.
The disgraced carer also utilised the anonymous service user’s account to make payments totalling a whopping £4,702 into six separate gambling websites.
These payments included £2,342 to Rainbow Riches, £1,200 to Paddy Power and £780 to Tombola.
Allardyce was additionally found to have accompanied the service user – known only as AA – to make several cash withdrawals of around £250 from the account between August 2020 and March 2021.
Scottish care watchdog the Scottish Social Service Council (SSSC) has since labelled Allardyce “dishonest” in a hearing which saw the carer struck off.
The SSSC’s full report reads: “Social services workers are expected to conduct themselves in a way which ensures the safety and wellbeing of those within their care is maintained and that they are protected from harm.
“Workers are expected to act with honesty and integrity in carrying their duties and not abuse the trust placed in them by service users and the wider public.
“Through your actions, you have breached that trust placed in you and acted in such a way that has caused emotional and financial harm to a vulnerable person.
“The behaviour in this case is serious. You have demonstrated an intentional and prolonged pattern of behaviour falling far below the standards of conduct expected of you.
“You have used a vulnerable service user’s bank account, accessible to you only as a result of your position as a social services worker.
“This demonstrates a disregard for the trust placed in you by your employer and the wider public as a registered social services worker.
“Your behaviour is dishonest which is very difficult to remediate.”
Allardyce was found to have shown no remorse for her actions, with the SSSC adding: “You have shown limited, if any, insight into the seriousness of your actions.
“You have failed to demonstrate any steps you have taken to remediate your actions or offer an explanation for the behaviour.
“Due to this, and the sustained repetitive nature of your actions, the SSSC and the wider public cannot be assured that the behaviour will not be repeated should you be allowed to return to work in social services.
“The risk to the public is ongoing. The SSSC is not assured that you do not pose a risk to vulnerable individuals.
“The SSSC has a duty as a responsible regulator to ensure that any risk to vulnerable service users and the wider public is minimised.
“The behaviour in this case has a negative impact on the public interest. The SSSC is responsible for ensuring public confidence in the care sector and the register is maintained and upheld.
“The public expects the SSSC, as a responsible regulator, to take action, where someone has acted in a way which damages the reputation of the caring profession.”
The panel agreed that removal was the best sanction, stating: “Your actions were an abuse of the trust placed in you to care for a vulnerable individual and were carried out during the course of your duties.
“Your actions were sustained and deliberate. Your actions resulted in considerable emotional harm to the service user concerned.
“A warning would not be appropriate as the behaviour is extremely serious. A warning would give no protection to service users or the public.
“A suspension order would not be appropriate as your behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continuing registration.
“There is little evidence you acknowledge your failings and the pattern of behaviour and lack of insight suggest the behaviour is likely to be repeated.
“The SSSC considers a removal order is the most appropriate sanction as it is both necessary and justified in the public interest and to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession.”
