Coroner Finds UK Treasury 'Materially Contributed' to Death of Personal Assistant Chloe Moffat
A coroner has found that HM Treasury "materially contributed" to the death of Chloe Moffat, a 26-year-old personal assistant who took her own life after facing disciplinary proceedings. Coroner Anna Crawford concluded that the shock and distress of the allegations, combined with Moffat's belief that she was going to lose her job, contributed to her state of mind and her decision to take her own life. The inquest was held at the Surrey coroners' court [The Guardian, 2026-07-10].
Moffat had worked at the UK Treasury as a personal assistant for almost three years. During a three-day hearing, the coroner heard that Moffat "loved her job" and had an "exemplary employment record." Coroner Crawford found that Moffat "appeared well and happy" before a meeting on 19 May 2025 and that there were no previous concerns about her mental health. The catalyst for her distress was an anonymous complaint alleging she had informally shared information about colleagues that she had been privy to during her job. Moffat denied the allegation [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
The Treasury's human resources policy, which aligns with Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) guidelines, stipulates that serious misconduct allegations must be dealt with formally. A formal process ensures the individual is not deprived of rights such as having a third party present, receiving five days' notice, and being informed of the likely outcome. Coroner Crawford found that the meeting with Moffat was not in accordance with Treasury policy because decisions had already been made to limit her role and responsibilities, and the policy makes no provision for such informal meetings [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
Despite the meeting being described as "informal," Moffat's job responsibilities were temporarily changed and her access to her manager's diary was removed. The head of global issues at the Treasury, who was running the investigation, told the court she did not give Moffat prior notice of the meeting because she did not want Moffat to worry about it. During the meeting, Moffat was not reassured that her job was safe even though she was unlikely to be dismissed, and she was not allowed to have a third party of her choice present. When Moffat asked in tears whether she would lose her job, the investigator replied that she could not predict the outcome of any potential investigation [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
The disciplinary process left Moffat "devastated" and convinced she had lost her job. She killed herself the morning after the meeting [The Guardian, 2026-08-10]. Prior reporting established that her death occurred one day after the anonymous complaint was made about her [Metro, 2026-08-01]. Moffat's line manager told the court she would not have done anything differently and that they did all they could at the time with the information and advice they were given [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
Coroner Crawford found that by handling the matter the way they did, Moffat was denied safeguards, and the concern she would lose her job materially contributed to her state of mind and decision to take her own life. The coroner found there was a risk of future deaths within the civil service from flawed handling of disciplinary proceedings. Crawford said she would send a prevention of future deaths report to the head of the civil service, the Treasury, and Acas [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
HM Treasury has vowed to update its disciplinary procedures following Moffat's death [HR Grapevine, 2026-07-23]. The prevention of future deaths report operates as a formal mechanism compelling recipients to respond. It places institutional pressure on the civil service to address the structural ambiguities in its disciplinary frameworks.
The case turns on the distinction between formal and informal disciplinary routes. Treasury policy mandates formal handling of serious misconduct, a process that carries built-in protections: five days' notice, the right to accompaniment, and clarity on likely outcomes. By initiating an informal meeting while simultaneously imposing sanctions—removing diary access and altering job responsibilities—the investigator bypassed those safeguards. The coroner's finding that the policy "makes no provision for such informal meetings" identifies a specific gap between procedural rules and managerial practice.
Crawford's determination that the Treasury "materially contributed" to Moffat's death establishes a direct causal link between the procedural failures and the outcome. The decision by the head of global issues to withhold prior notice to prevent worry, combined with the refusal to reassure Moffat about her job security, created conditions the coroner found directly impacted Moffat's state of mind. The line manager's testimony that she would not have acted differently suggests the systemic issue lies in the guidance managers received, a point the prevention of future deaths report will likely address.
For civil service HR practitioners and institutional leaders, the inquest outcome reframes how informal disciplinary mechanisms are evaluated. When an informal meeting involves preemptive restrictions on role and access, it carries the weight of a formal process without the corresponding protections. The Treasury's commitment to update its procedures, coupled with the coroner's report to the head of the civil service and Acas, will require scrutiny of how Acas guidelines on informal resolution are interpreted and applied across government departments. The risk of future deaths, as identified by the coroner, elevates this from an individual case to a systemic procedural concern.
