A Coroner Says the UK Treasury Helped Cause a Young Worker's Death — Here's What Happened

A coroner has found that the UK 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, along with Moffat's belief she would 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 Treasury as a personal assistant for almost three years. 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 there were no previous concerns about her mental health. The trigger was an anonymous complaint claiming she had informally shared information about colleagues that she had access to through her job. Moffat denied the allegation [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].

The Treasury's HR policy follows guidance from Acas, a public body that advises on workplace disputes. That policy says serious misconduct allegations must be handled through a formal process. A formal process gives the employee certain rights: five days' notice before any meeting, the right to bring someone with them for support, and clear information about what might happen. Coroner Crawford found that the meeting with Moffat did not follow Treasury policy because decisions had already been made to limit her role and responsibilities, and the policy does not allow for this kind of informal meeting [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].

Even though the meeting was called "informal," Moffat's job responsibilities were temporarily changed and her access to her manager's diary was taken away. The Treasury official running the investigation said she did not give Moffat prior notice of the meeting because she did not want her to worry. During the meeting, Moffat was not told her job was safe — even though she was unlikely to be fired — and she was not allowed to have someone with her. When Moffat asked in tears whether she would lose her job, the investigator said she could not predict the outcome [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].

The process left Moffat "devastated" and convinced she had lost her job. She took her own life the morning after the meeting [The Guardian, 2026-08-10]. Her death came one day after the anonymous complaint was made [Metro, 2026-08-01]. Moffat's line manager told the court she would not have done anything differently, saying they did all they could with the information and advice they had at the time [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].

Coroner Crawford found that by handling the matter the way they did, Moffat was denied important protections. The fear that she would lose her job materially contributed to her state of mind and her decision to take her own life. The coroner also found there is a risk of future deaths in the civil service from poorly handled disciplinary proceedings. Crawford said she would send a prevention of future deaths report — a formal document that requires the people who receive it to respond — to the head of the civil service, the Treasury, and Acas [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].

The Treasury has said it will update its disciplinary procedures following Moffat's death [HR Grapevine, 2026-07-23]. The prevention of future deaths report puts pressure on the civil service to fix problems in how it handles disciplinary cases.

To understand why this matters, it helps to know the difference between formal and informal disciplinary routes. Think of it like a legal trial versus a casual conversation. A formal process comes with built-in protections, like advance notice and the right to bring a support person. An informal meeting has none of those guarantees. The problem here is that the Treasury treated the meeting as informal while still punishing Moffat — removing her diary access and changing her responsibilities. That meant she faced the consequences of a formal process without any of its protections.

The coroner's finding that the Treasury "materially contributed" to Moffat's death draws a direct line between the procedural failures and the outcome. The investigator's choice to withhold prior notice to avoid worrying Moffat, and her refusal to reassure Moffat about her job, created conditions the coroner said directly affected Moffat's state of mind. The line manager's testimony that she would not have acted differently suggests the real problem may lie in the guidance managers received rather than in any individual's choices.

For civil service leaders, this case changes how informal disciplinary meetings should be viewed. When an informal meeting includes restrictions on someone's role and access, it has the weight of a formal process but without the protections. The Treasury's promise to update its procedures, along with the coroner's report to the head of the civil service and Acas, means government departments will need to look closely at how they interpret guidance on handling workplace complaints. The risk of future deaths, as the coroner identified, makes this more than one person's story — it is a systemic problem that needs fixing.