[2025] UKUT 041 (AAC)

On 8 February 2021, the employer (more specifically, AW) referred the Appellant to the DBS. On 20 February 2021, the DBS sent the Appellant an Early Warning Letter. This was followed by a Minded to Bar letter, dated 28 July 2021, which invited the Appellant to make any representations regarding the proposal to include her name in the barred lists, by 24 September 2021. On 24 September 2021, the Appellant submitted provisional representations [152-157] and requested additional time to supplement these. An extension was agreed until 11 October 2021. On that date, the Appellant submitted further written representations [161-164] and thereafter sent a supporting bundle of documents, dated 18 October 2021 [167-183].

By way of FDL dated 20 October 2021 [184], the DBS communicated its decision to include the Appellant’s name on the CBL and on the ABL. The DBS was satisfied that the Appellant met the criteria for “regulated activity” on the basis of her work as a support worker, accompanied by evidence that she had applied for enhanced DBS checks in 2016 and 2017 for the post of Registered Manager in the children’s workforce. It was also noted that the Appellant held a Diploma in Leadership in Health and Social Care.

The DBS was satisfied that the Appellant had engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm vulnerable adults and children having found, on the balance of probabilities, that the following allegations were proven:

The DBS made its decision based on the information provided to it by the employer namely: the employer’s referral form [60]; the employer’s investigation report, dated 2 December 2020, with supporting documents [68] including the notes of the disciplinary meetings dated 17 November 2020 [80] and 10 December 2020 [109], the bank statements [91] and cashbook entries [95-104], the daybook entry [105], the summary dismissal letter dated 7 January 2021 [120], and the Appellant’s job description, employment contracts, and evidence of her change of name [131-149]. The DBS also took into account the Appellant’s representations and supporting documents.

The DBS found that the allegations initially levied by the employer, asserting that the Appellant had taken money from AO’s bank account on 13 separate occasions, and had failed to record these amounts, during the period 5 October 2019 to 1 September 2020, were not made out. In addition, the DBS did not find that two of the three allegations found to be proven by the employer, relating to withdrawals on 19 October 2019 and 30 May 2020, were made out. It reasoned that there was no direct evidence that the Appellant had accompanied AO to withdraw monies on these two occasions, and there was no evidence to refute her suggestion that another member of staff might have asked her simply to record the withdrawals in the cashbook. By contrast, the DBS found there was corroborating evidence in relation to the withdrawal on 11 April 2020, as the Appellant had made an additional entry, in AO’s daybook, to say that AO was accompanied that day to complete a bank withdrawal and had initialled the withdrawal transaction in the daybook. The DBS were also satisfied that the Appellant had attempted to destroy the cashbook evidence during her visit to the workplace on 31 October 2020, and that she had breached the terms of her suspension.