A teacher scammed Asda out of almost £3,000 by using a discount code which set items to 1p.
Kirstie Reynolds used a code at self-checkout machines in the supermarket which was created to reduce the price of rotisserie chicken to one pence.
Ms Reynolds used the loophole to purchase items worth £1,030.77 in one store and £1,700 in another.
She repeated the trick on multiple occasions between February 25, 2023, and March 30, 2023.
Ms Reynolds, who worked at the Prudhoe West Academy in Northumberland, pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation at South Shields Magistrates’ Court in June 2023.
She was sentenced to a 12-month community order, ordered to pay a £400 fine, £3,000 compensation to Asda, a victim surcharge of £160 and prosecution costs of £85.
Following her conviction, she was referred to the Teacher Regulation Agency, who were tasked with deciding whether Ms Reynolds should remain in the profession.
A teacher scammed Asda out of almost £3,000 by using a discount code which set items to 1p
The panel decided that there was a ‘public interest’ in keeping her in the profession.
It said Ms Reynolds has started a new job in an Early Years setting following her convictions, where she had developed her skills and knowledge in SEND’ and received an invitation to join a local authority SEND steering group.
In her evidence to the panel, the teacher said she has spent ‘every day for the last 2 years reflecting on how much her actions had hurt and negatively impacted her family, colleagues and the profession’.
The panel said she took full responsibility for her actions, and the implications for her profession and had demonstrated real insight and remorse.
It said she has a ‘passion and commitment for teaching’ and after starting a new job at a nursery in January 2024, she had later received thank you messages from parents.
A character reference for Ms Reynolds said: ‘From the start, I could see how devastated and remorseful Kirstie was.’
‘In my opinion, to remove Kirstie’s teaching registration would be a disservice to the teaching profession and the many children and families she could positively impact upon in the future.’
Marc Cavey, who authored a report into Ms Reynolds on behalf of the Secretary of State, wrote: ‘A prohibition order would prevent Ms Reynolds from teaching.
‘A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.
‘A prohibition order would prevent Ms Reynolds from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.
‘I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. While the misconduct found in this case was undoubtedly serious, and is likely to damage the reputation of the profession, I do not think that preventing Ms Reynolds from working as a teacher would serve any useful purpose.’
