Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)

Fecha: 22-May-2024

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision was made under paragraphs 3 and 9 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). These provide (in very similar terms as regards both children and vulnerable adults) that DBS must include a person in the relevant barred list if

it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct,

it has reason to believe that the person is, or has been, or might in the future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children/vulnerable adults, and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.

Under paragraphs 4 and 10, “relevant conduct” includes, amongst other things, conduct which endangers a child/vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a child/vulnerable adult, or which, if repeated against or in relation to a child/vulnerable adult, would endanger them or would be likely to endanger them; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a child/vulnerable adult if she (amongst other things)

harms them or

causes them to be harmed or

puts them at risk of harm.

The letter conveying DBS’s decision (the “decision letter”):

found that

on multiple occasions before and including on the morning of 14 June 2022, whilst working as a care assistant in a supported living home, JW prevented a service user (Miss X), a 19-year-old with complex needs, from leaving her room as she wished by holding the door closed, causing her emotional distress; and

on 14 June 2022, JW told Miss X that she did not like working with her and called her violent and unpredictable;

(we refer to the above as DBS’s “core factual findings”)

ii.

stated that DBS was satisfied that JW engaged in relevant conduct in relation to vulnerable adults, on the basis that she had engaged in conduct which endangered a vulnerable adult or was likely to endanger a vulnerable adult;

iii.

stated that DBS considered that JW had engaged in relevant conduct in relation to children: conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a child, would endanger that child or would be likely to endanger them;

iv.

stated that DBS was satisfied that JW, in preventing Miss X from leaving the room on multiple occasions by holding the door closed, had placed Miss X at risk of physical harm (as well as causing her significant emotional distress), because JW was aware that Miss X was known to engage in self-injurious behaviour when distressed;

cited a number of aspects of JW’s representations to DBS which, DBS found, indicated significant lack of insight and empathy into Miss X;

vi.

found that JW’s poor problem-solving and coping skills directly contributed to her behaviour towards Miss X, as JW maintained that she held the door closed on Miss X as a means of dealing with her challenging behaviour;

vii.

acknowledged that JW had worked in care settings for 25 years.