[2025] UKUT 303 (AAC)

There is no dispute that EAO has engaged in regulated activity.

DBS found, and EAO accepted, that EAO had, on at least three occasions between 2020 and 2022, used vulnerable adult service users’ Oyster cards for her own travel. It also found, and EAO accepted, that she had pretended to spit at a service user with the intent of stopping the service user from spitting at her.

While at the permission hearing EAO accepted that her use of service users’ Oyster cards to pay for EAO’s own travel amounted to financial abuse, she was more circumspect at the substantive hearing. We have no hesitation in confirming that the DBS was entitled to find that EAO’s actions did amount to financial abuse.

DBS was also entitled to find that EAO pretending to spit at a service user (while not actually spitting at the service user) risked emotional abuse.

Our task was to decide whether the Barring Decision was proportionate in all the circumstances. We accept that the Barring Decision has had grave consequences for EAO. It has stopped her from working in her chosen field of care, which she appears to have carried out for some years without complaints being made about her work. She has had to resort to working as a door supervisor, which has resulted in a drop in her income and has also resulted in her skills and experience in the care sector being put to waste.

While the financial value of the journeys which EAO paid for using service users’ Oyster cards is presumed to be low, it still amounts to financial abuse which is a serious matter not only due to it depriving the service users financially, but in undermining their trust in their carers, something that EAO acknowledged in her reflective statement.

We were concerned that while EAO largely accepted responsibility for her actions at the permission hearing, by the time of the substantive hearing she sought to minimise her wrongdoing, and to deny that it amounted to financial abuse. This concerned us, because it indicated that EAO did not have the degree of insight that she appeared to have at the permission hearing. Such a lack of insight is important because if EAO does not accept that her actions were wrong there is a higher likelihood that she might repeat the same or similar abuse in the future.

With regard to the incident of EAO pretending to spit at a service user, we consider that had this been the only abuse found, barring EAO would not have been a proportionate, but the Barring Decision was made based on both the pretended spitting and the financial abuse.

In all the circumstances, while we can see why EAO considers the sanction of barring to be harsh and we have sympathy for her situation, we find that the Barring Decision was nonetheless a proportionate response.