Natalie Rae
Introduction
Natalie Rae is a former care assistant from Prestwick in Ayrshire who was struck off the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) register after embezzling £790.50 from a supported person in her care. The victim is only known as ‘AA’ to protect their identity. Rae’s town of employment was Prestwick, according to a decision notice from industry regulator the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). Rae was convicted of the offence at Ayr Sheriff Court in February 2026, and the SSSC subsequently imposed a Removal Order, describing it as the most appropriate sanction.
Background Information
Rae worked as a care assistant, with her town of employment recorded by the regulator as Prestwick. Between 27 September 2025 and 13 October 2025 — both dates inclusive — she embezzled a total of £790.50 from AA, the supported person she was employed to look after.
Care assistants work closely with supported people, often in the person’s own home or a residential setting, and the role runs on trust: service users depend on care staff for honest handling of their money, property and daily affairs. The SSSC treats embezzlement by a care worker as a crime of dishonesty that strikes directly at that relationship and at public confidence in social services.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Criminal conviction for embezzlement, followed by regulatory removal. Rae was convicted at Ayr Sheriff Court in February 2026; the SSSC then found her fitness to practise impaired and imposed a Removal Order.
The SSSC’s decision notice set out why the case was treated as highly serious. The behaviour, it said, “constitutes financial abuse”, and Rae placed AA at risk of emotional and financial harm. Her actions “fell far below what is expected of a social care worker and are fundamentally incompatible with registration”.
The notice continued: “Embezzlement is a crime of dishonesty and such dishonesty undermines trust in social services. The behaviour is highly serious as it constitutes theft of a large sum of money from a supported person who would have placed their trust in you.” It added that dishonest behaviour of this nature “indicates underlying values issues which may not be capable of being remedied” and falls “at the more serious end of the scale of seriousness”.
Public Reaction and Consequences
Rae’s conviction was recorded at Ayr Sheriff Court in February 2026. In assessing her fitness to practise, the SSSC found it to be impaired and said she had “abused the trust” placed in her by her supported person.
The decision notice identified several factors of concern. Rae did not demonstrate “any insight, regret or apology” for the behaviour; the behaviour occurred during the course of her employment and was “premeditated”; it happened on “several occasions”, indicating “a pattern of behaviour”; and she had “abused the trust placed in her”.
On sanction, the SSSC stated: “The SSSC considers a Removal Order is the most appropriate sanction as it is both necessary and justified in the public interest and to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession.” Rae’s name was struck from the register, with the decision reported on 23 July 2026.
Current Status
Rae is subject to a Removal Order and no longer appears on the SSSC register. The published record states the conviction but does not detail the sentence imposed by Ayr Sheriff Court, and it does not say whether the £790.50 was repaid to AA.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The Removal Order ends Rae’s ability to work in registered social care roles in Scotland. Combined with a criminal conviction for embezzlement, the regulator’s findings — the financial abuse of a supported person, premeditated and repeated, met without insight or apology — close the door on care work and would be material to any future employer vetting her history of working with vulnerable people.
The SSSC’s reasoning that her dishonesty pointed to “underlying values issues which may not be capable of being remedied” was central to its choice of the most severe sanction available. The decision notice positioned the removal as necessary both to protect the public and to maintain trust and confidence in the social service profession itself.