Installation engineer dismissed for fuelling personal car with company credit card
An installation engineer who used his employer's credit card to fuel his personal car on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #company-credit-card-misuse
- #fuel-theft
- #final-written-warning
- #independent-investigation
- #cctv-evidence
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an installation engineer from 1 August 2017 to 30 January 2023.
- He was dismissed for gross misconduct after using the company credit card to fuel his personal vehicle on three occasions.
- The respondent conducted an investigation and disciplinary hearing with external consultants to ensure fairness.
- The claimant had a live final written warning for previous conduct issues.
- The claimant did not appeal the dismissal decision.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as an installation engineer for ABS Installations Limited.
-
Rude behaviour incident
Claimant exhibited rude and objectionable behaviour towards director Mr Jones.
-
Final written warning issued
Following a disciplinary hearing, claimant received a final written warning and a performance improvement plan.
-
First fuel card misuse
Claimant used company credit card to fuel his personal vehicle at 17:35 while company van was on site.
-
Second fuel card misuse
Claimant used company credit card to fuel his personal vehicle at 16:00 after clocking out.
-
Third fuel card misuse
Claimant used company credit card to fuel his personal vehicle at 17:14; CCTV showed him fuelling his BMW.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into the allegations.
-
Investigation meeting
External consultant Amanda Stevens held an investigation meeting with the claimant.
-
Disciplinary hearing
External consultant Scott Bowie conducted a disciplinary hearing; claimant could not provide reasonable explanation.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct; he did not appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for gross misconduct, specifically whether it had reasonable grounds for its belief and conducted a fair investigation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, finding that the employer acted reasonably.
Key reasons:
- The employer had a genuine belief that the employee used the company credit card to fuel his personal vehicle on three occasions, based on CCTV, fuel receipts, and vehicle tracker data.
- The investigation and disciplinary hearing were conducted by external consultants to ensure fairness.
- The employee had a live final written warning for previous conduct issues.
- The employee did not appeal the dismissal decision.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should conduct a thorough investigation, including gathering documentary evidence and holding a fair hearing, before dismissing for gross misconduct.
- Employees should be aware that using company resources for personal benefit without authorisation can amount to gross misconduct, especially if they have a previous warning.
- Failing to appeal a dismissal decision can weaken a subsequent unfair dismissal claim, as it may suggest acceptance of the outcome.
This case shows how an employer's careful handling of a misconduct allegation can protect it from an unfair dismissal claim. The installation engineer had been with the company for five years but had already received a final written warning for rude behaviour and poor performance. When the company discovered he had used its credit card to fuel his personal car on three separate occasions, it suspended him and brought in external HR consultants to investigate and chair the disciplinary hearing.
What the employer did right
The company did not rush to judgment. It gathered evidence including fuel receipts, vehicle tracker data, and CCTV footage showing the engineer's personal car at the petrol station while his work van was parked at the depot. The investigation meeting gave the employee a chance to explain, but he could not provide a reasonable justification. The dismissing officer, an HR manager, concluded that the misuse of the credit card was a deliberate act of dishonesty, especially given the employee's existing final written warning.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal applied the standard test for unfair dismissal: did the employer have a genuine belief in the misconduct, on reasonable grounds, after a reasonable investigation? It found that the answer was yes on all counts. The use of external consultants helped ensure impartiality, and the employee's failure to appeal the decision also counted against him. The tribunal noted that a reasonable employer could have decided to dismiss in these circumstances, even though a different employer might have imposed a lesser penalty.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who are dismissed for misconduct should always consider appealing internally, as a failure to do so can undermine a later claim. For employers, this case reinforces the importance of a fair process: independent investigation, clear evidence, and a proper disciplinary hearing. Even a small employer with limited resources can defend a dismissal if it follows these steps.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
Customer service assistant dismissed for attempted strike on teenager: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A customer service assistant who tried to strike a teenage customer with an open hand was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled. His race discrimination claims against third-party security guards were also dismissed.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.