Dismissed for fraudulent ATM withdrawals: tribunal strikes out race bias claim
A Community Hub Director with 11 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly faking a stolen card. The tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospects of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly making fraudulent ATM withdrawals and claiming his card was stolen.
- The respondent's investigation found that the same IP address and device ID were used to transfer money into the claimant's account and check his balance around the time of the withdrawals.
- The claimant argued that a family member may have used his card and that the respondent failed to check CCTV footage promptly.
- The claimant alleged race discrimination, claiming the respondent assumed his guilt because he is of West African origin.
- The tribunal struck out all claims as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a Community Hub Director.
-
Funds transfer and withdrawals
Claimant transferred £1,000 into his account at 6pm. Between 6.59pm and 2.09am, his card was used to withdraw £1,100 from an ATM near his home.
-
Claimant reports card stolen
Claimant contacted Santander's Fraud Investigations Team to report the withdrawals as unauthorised and his card missing.
-
Referral to Special Investigations Unit
Fraud Investigations referred the matter to the SIU.
-
Alleged further use of stolen card
The allegedly stolen card was used and declined; another of the claimant's cards was then used successfully.
-
Alleged further attempt with stolen card
The allegedly stolen card was used to attempt a withdrawal; 4 minutes later the claimant's correct card was used at his workplace.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended from work at a meeting, confirmed in writing on 21 November 2019.
-
Disciplinary hearing (first part)
Disciplinary hearing held by Zoom due to Covid-19.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct following an adjournment.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing to consider respondent's strike-out application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims had no reasonable prospects of success and should be struck out without a full hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success.
- The employer's investigation showed that the same IP address and device ID were used to transfer money into the claimant's account and to check his balance around the time of the disputed withdrawals.
- Further evidence revealed that the allegedly stolen card was used alongside the claimant's other card weeks later, strongly suggesting the claimant had both cards.
- The claimant's race discrimination claim was unsupported: there was no evidence that the employer assumed guilt because of his West African origin, and the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct based on objective evidence.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Digital evidence such as IP addresses and device IDs can be powerful in establishing misconduct; employees should be aware that their online activity may be traced.
- A claim of race discrimination needs some factual basis beyond a bare assertion; tribunals will strike out claims that are purely speculative.
- Employers who conduct a thorough investigation and rely on objective evidence are likely to have their dismissal decisions upheld, even in the face of a long-service employee.
- If you report a card stolen but later use it, that inconsistency can be used as evidence of dishonesty in disciplinary proceedings.
This case shows how digital footprints can be decisive in conduct dismissals. The claimant, a Community Hub Director with 11 years' service, was dismissed after Santander's investigation concluded he had fabricated a stolen card claim. The key evidence was that the same IP address and device ID were used to transfer money into his account and later check his balance during the night of the alleged theft. Weeks after reporting the card stolen, the card was used again alongside his other card, suggesting he still had both.
What the employer did right
Santander carried out a detailed investigation, including interviews and analysis of digital records. They gave the claimant a chance to respond at a disciplinary hearing (held by Zoom due to Covid-19) and considered his explanations. The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on reasonable grounds, which is the key test for a fair conduct dismissal.
Why the race discrimination claim failed
The claimant argued that Santander assumed his guilt because he is of West African origin. But the tribunal found no evidence to support this. The employer's investigation was based on objective digital evidence, not stereotypes. The claimant pointed to no comments or actions suggesting bias. Tribunals require some factual basis for discrimination claims; a bare assertion is not enough.
What this means for similar cases
Employees who dispute misconduct allegations should be aware that digital evidence can be hard to rebut. If you claim a card is stolen but the data shows otherwise, the employer is likely to have reasonable grounds to dismiss. For discrimination claims, it is essential to identify specific evidence of bias — for example, discriminatory remarks or a pattern of unequal treatment. Without that, the claim may be struck out early, saving both sides the cost of a full hearing.
Similar cases
Patient Administrator dismissed for theft after CCTV evidence: claim struck out as hopeless
A tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim from a Patient Administrator who was dismissed for allegedly stealing a colleague's bag, after finding CCTV footage left no reasonable prospect of success.
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.
Race discrimination claim partly struck out: third-party motive not enough
A tribunal struck out one part of a former employee's race discrimination claim because the alleged discriminatory act was carried out by a third party, but allowed other allegations to proceed.
Claim struck out: no employment relationship with Financial Ombudsman Service
A former complainant who claimed to be an employee of the Financial Ombudsman Service had all his claims struck out after failing to attend a preliminary hearing and providing no evidence of an employment relationship.