Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

Fecha: 09-Jun-2022

Approach of the Upper Tribunal

Approach of the Upper Tribunal

20.

The grounds advanced were somewhat overlapping, but can be summarised into the following issues which were dealt with at the appeal hearing:

(i)

Whether the DBS made mistakes of fact in the findings that:

The Appellant accompanied AO to withdraw cash on 11 April 2020 and stole the money not accounted for in the cashbook – the DBS erred by basing its finding on the wording and on the initials of the Appellant in AO’s daybook; and

The Appellant had breached the terms of her suspension by attending her place of work and contacting a colleague (FOA) – the DBS erred by basing this finding on the assumption that the Appellant should have known that she should not attend her place of work or contact a colleague while under suspension.

(ii)

Whether the DBS had made mistakes of law in relation to:

A failure of the DBS to obtain and consider cashbooks and other records from the employer which would have provided context for the manner of cash handling when supporting a service user

A failure of the DBS to consider evidence from the Appellant, namely her unblemished work record of 12 years, her submissions dated 27 September 2021 and her submissions dated 11 October 2021;

its finding that the Appellant poses a future risk of harm, which was unsupported by evidence

21.

While the Appellant, in her skeleton argument (undated), was disputing two of the three allegations against her, when giving evidence, it was clear that she also took issue with the finding that she had attempted to destroy the cashbook evidence (allegation 2). We therefore dealt with all three matters, as the grant of permission to appeal was not limited to consideration of allegations 1 and 3 only. The Respondent raised no issue with this approach.