Please do not include any living persons’ names in this document, in accordance with the Chief Coroner’s PFD Publication Policy (2026).

I am Anna Crawford, Assistant Coroner, for the coroner area of Surrey.

 I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013.

1.Chancellor of the Exchequer 1 Horse Guards Road 
London 
SW1A 2HQ 

2.Head of the Civil Service Cabinet Office  
70 Whitehall  
London 
SW1A 2AS 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely  by 7 October 2026. I, the coroner, may extend the period if an appropriate application is made.

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise, you must explain why no action is proposed.   

I have a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner. In accordance with the Chief Coroner’s Publication Policy, you should send me any  representations regarding publication of your response. These representations should be made at the same time as the response is provided. I will pass any representations received to the Chief Coroner for a decision.   

Please note any links to webpages included in the response will not be checked for sensitive information prior to publication, as the information is already online.   

The names of those who do not respond to PFD reports are regularly published on the Chief  Coroner’s webpages Non-responses to Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. 

There is an ongoing practice at HM Treasury, and more widely across government, whereby informal fact-finding meetings are conducted with employees who are the subject of  allegations of serious or gross misconduct.     

This practice has no basis in HM Treasury’s written disciplinary policy and procedure and denies the employee the following safeguards which are envisaged by the policy:  – Written notice of the allegations before the employee is asked to comment on them; – The opportunity to be accompanied by a Trade Union Representative or colleague;  – Information as to the likely penalty should the allegations be proven. I consider that this presents a risk of future death.

 In my opinion unless action is taken to address the above concerns then there is a significant risk of future deaths and I believe each of you have the power to take such action. 

On 29 May 2025 an inquest was opened into the death of Chloe Moffat. The inquest was resumed on 6 and 7 July 2026 and concluded on 10 August 2026. 
The medical cause of Miss Moffat’s death was 1a. Suspension.
The inquest concluded with the following findings of fact with respect to where, when and how Miss Moffat came by her death: 

Paragraph 3 of the Record of Inquest:

Chloe Moffat was 26 years old. She lived in London and worked as a Personal Assistant at HM Treasury.

On 19 May 2025 Miss Moffat attended what she thought was a routine one to one meeting  with her line manager. On attending the meeting her line manager and a more senior manager were present.  She was informed that a number of allegations had been made that she had  shared sensitive personal information about colleagues, which she had obtained as part of her job role, within the office. 

She denied the allegations and gave an explanation. She was  informed that no final decision had been taken as to how the allegations would be handled but  that it may be by way of a formal investigation or disciplinary meeting.  She was told that  temporary changes would be made to her job role. She asked whether she would lose her job  and was told that the outcome could not be predicted at that stage.   

Miss Moffat was upset and distressed by the allegations. She was worried that they would  damage her reputation at work and that she would lose her job. Following the meeting Miss Moffat went to stay at her parents’ house [REDACTED] in Godalming.  

On 20 May 2025 Miss Moffat hanged herself  [REDACTED] with the intention of taking her own life. Miss Moffat’s concern that she would lose her job materially contributed   to her state of mind prior to her death and the formation of her intention to take her own life. Paragraph 4 of the Record of Inquest: Suicide.    

HM Treasury materially contributed to Miss Moffat’s death by not applying their written  Discipline Policy and Procedure in that they did not inform her that the likely penalty, if the allegations were proven, was a written warning and not dismissal. 

In addition to the matters set out above the Court made the following findings of fact: Prior to the meeting on 19 May 2025 the managers and the human resources team dealing  with the allegations already had sufficient information available to them to assess that the level of the alleged misconduct was that of serious misconduct and indeed they had already made  that assessment by 16 May 2025.    

The purpose of the meeting with Miss Moffat on 19 May 2025, which was described as an  informal fact-finding meeting, was to put the allegations to her to see whether she admitted or  denied them. If she denied them a formal investigation would be necessary but if she admitted them it was planned to proceed directly to a formal disciplinary meeting.           

This was described as a fast-track process by one of the HR Advisors who advised in relation to Miss Moffat.   The HM Treasury Disciplinary Policy and Procedure is dated April 2023 and adopts the  wording of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures issued by the Advisory, Conciliary and Arbitration Service (ACAS).  

It makes no mention of, or provision for, an informal fact finding meeting or fast track process  to decide whether a formal investigation is needed or whether it is possible to proceed directly to a formal disciplinary meeting.  However, the court heard evidence from senior human resources managers that informal fact- finding meetings of this nature were, and remain, standard practice within HM Treasury and  across other government departments, and potentially also in private industry.   

This is a matter of concern because employees can be asked to comment on allegations of serious misconduct and gross misconduct in the absence of the following safeguards:  Written notice of the allegations before the employee is asked to comment on them; The opportunity to be accompanied by a Trade Union Representative or colleague;  Information as to the likely penalty should the allegations be proven. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:

There is an ongoing practice at HM Treasury, and more widely across government, whereby informal fact-finding meetings are conducted with employees who are the subject of  allegations of serious and gross misconduct.    

This practice has no basis in HM Treasury’s written disciplinary policy and procedure and denies the employee the following safeguards which are envisaged by the policy:  Written notice of the allegations before being asked to comment on them; 

The opportunity to be accompanied by a Trade Union Representative or colleague; Information as to the likely penalty should the allegations be proven.  I consider that this presents a risk of future death.

I have a duty to send a copy of my report to every Interested Person who in my opinion should receive it. 

I also may send a copy of the report to any other person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. 

I can confirm I have sent the report to:

1.   Chloe Moffat’s family  
2.   The Advisory, Conciliary and Arbitration Service (ACAS)
3.   The Chief Coroner  

I also have a duty to send a copy of the report to the Chief Coroner. You may make representations to me, the coroner, about the publication of the contents of this report in line with Chief Coroner’s PFD Publication Policy (2026). Any representations will be  sent to the Chief Coroner alongside the report. Please refer to box 4 above for additional  information relating to the publication of reports and responses.