A Greenhills woman convicted of fraud has been struck off as a carer by social services.
Tracey McHugh admitted pocketing £59,000 in benefits she was not entitled to between 2010 and 2017.
The 38-year-old claimed she was a single mother of twins when in fact her husband, who worked, lived at the family home at the time.
McHugh failed to declare her conviction to her employers or the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC).
The SSSC last month struck her off from their register citing an ‘impairment to practice’ and lack of ‘public confidence’ if she were to be kept on.
The decision stops McHugh – who worked as a practitioner in care of children services – from ever working as a carer again.
McHugh admitted fraudulently claiming working tax credit and child tax credits at Hamilton Sheriff Court last November, claiming she was single.
In December 2018 she was sentenced to 300 hours unpaid work and was told it was “a direct alternative to custody”.
At her SSSC disciplinary, McHugh was told: “You agreed to tell the SSSC as soon as reasonably practicable about any event that could call into question your good character, including a charge.
“But you did not inform the SSSC of your charge or conviction, your emplyer did on December 7. Your husband was intermittently absent from home at the time, which had an adverse impact on you.
“But your behaviour was so serious that the mitigating circumstances are not sufficient to mitigate public confidence concerns.
“In cases where there are concerns that relate to values and attitudinal concenrs, those concerns are more difficult to remediate, and less weight should be attached to remedial action.
“Your behaviour would undermine public confidence in the profession if no action were taken. Your conviction is very serious which is evident from the sentence imposed.
“You are a member of a profession in which principles of honesty are at its core and your behaviour is incompatible with professional practice.”
The report stated that McHugh has since completed 260 hours of the 300 hours expects and was due to complete these six-months ahead of schedule.
It also stated that, as well as working as a volunteer in a charity shop, she has set up her own cleaning business.
However, this was not enough for the presenter of the report to consider a suspension order, which would last for two years.
This was called “punitive” in the report, which stated that a ‘removal order’ was appropriate.
It continued: “A removal order is the most serious sanction available and should only be applied where no other order would adequately protect the public.
“A removal order is where this case finds itself, in that your behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a social service worker.”
