[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

The Appellant lodged an application for permission to appeal dated 17 January 2022. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Hemmingway on 9 June 2022 on four of the five grounds as stated in her application, as follows:

It is fair to say that the Appellant’s arguments have varied in their terms during this appeal process. However, working with her skeleton argument (undated) which was submitted prior to the appeal hearing, the Appellant perfected her submissions to the following:

“3.

Grounds of Appeal

3.1.

Material Errors in Fact-Finding

3.1.1.

The DBS has made fundamental factual errors in its assessment of the Appellant’s conduct. Specifically, the finding that the Appellant

accompanied a vulnerable service user, AO, to withdraw cash on 11 April 2020 is based on insufficient and flawed evidence.

3.1.2.

The DBS acknowledged that there was no evidence to support similar allegations for other dates (19 October 2019 and 30 May 2020), yet inconsistently upheld the allegation for 11 April 2020 based solely on the Appellant’s signature in the daybook. This signature only records that the service user was accompanied, not that the Appellant was the one who did so. The inconsistency in how the evidence is treated renders the

finding unreliable.

3.1.3.

The Appellant submits that the DBS erred in concluding that there was corroborating evidence for the 11 April 2020 incident, leading to a

wrongful finding of dishonesty and theft. This error alone is sufficient to

overturn the decision.

3.2.

Inadequate and Biased Evidence Assessment

3.2.1.

The DBS failed to take into account crucial evidence that was highlighted by the Appellant, including records from the employer that would provide context for the alleged discrepancies in cash handling. The failure to obtain these documents amounts to a breach of the statutory duty to consider all relevant material before reaching a decision.

3.2.2.

The DBS also relied on assumptions rather than evidence, particularly regarding the Appellant’s suspension conditions and alleged contact with colleagues. The conclusion that the Appellant breached suspension terms is speculative and unsupported by the evidence available. The decision-maker’s reliance on these assumptions gives rise to a perception of bias.

3.3.

Unreasonable Findings on Future Risk

3.3.1.

The DBS’s assertion that the Appellant poses a future risk of harm is unsupported by cogent evidence. The finding that the Appellant would

engage in future financial misconduct is based on the flawed and

erroneous finding of theft, which cannot reasonably be sustained.

3.3.2.

The decision fails to consider the Appellant’s unblemished record over 12 years in the care industry, where no prior concerns of misconduct had been raised. The decision-maker’s presumption that the Appellant should have known not to contact a colleague during suspension, despite no prior disciplinary history, demonstrates an unreasonable and prejudicial approach.

4.

Procedural Unfairness and Failure to Consider Relevant Evidence

4.1.

The DBS ignored relevant and significant evidence provided by the Appellant, including detailed submissions made on 27 September 2021 and 11 October 2021. The statutory framework requires that all representations and material evidence be considered. Ignoring this evidence amounts to a breach of procedural fairness.

4.2.

The failure to obtain and consider documents from the employer, including cashbooks and communication records, is particularly egregious. These records are critical in evaluating the context and reliability of the allegations, yet the DBS dismissed their relevance without proper inquiry.”