Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 269 (AAC)

Fecha: 28-May-2024

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision was made under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). This provides that DBS must include a person in the adults’ 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 vulnerable adults, and

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

Under paragraph 10, “relevant conduct” includes, amongst other things, conduct which endangers a vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a vulnerable adult; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a vulnerable adult if he (amongst other things)

harms them or

causes them to be harmed or

puts them at risk of harm.

The decision was based on a finding of fact (DBS’s “core factual finding”) that TJO neglected a vulnerable adult (the “VA”) in her care, by failing to complete scheduled care/welfare calls and/or inform her employer that she had not completed these calls on Saturday 16, Sunday 17 and Monday 18 January 2021.

DBS’s “barring decision summary” document stated that TJO admitted

that she failed to complete scheduled care/welfare calls and/or inform her employer that she had not completed these calls on 16-18 January 2021 (page 83 – this and the following page references are to the Upper Tribunal bundle)

during an investigatory meeting on 21 January 2021, that she did not see the VA during her evening call on Saturday 16 January 2201 and that she did not report this to her employer even though she was aware that she was meant to do so (page 83)

during the same investigatory meeting, that she failed to complete her morning and evening visits to the VA on Sunday 17 January 2021 (page 84)

during the same investigatory meeting, that she failed to complete a welfare call at 7.31 am on Monday 18 January 2021 and had failed to report this (page 84).

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

DBS was satisfied that TJO had engaged in conduct which harmed or could harm vulnerable adults

ii.

harm was caused by TJO’s neglect of the VA between 16 and 18 January 2021

iii.

it was reasonable to believe (based on what police found when they attended the VA’s home at 6.30 pm on Sunday 17 January) that the VA had been on the floor when TJO’s scheduled visit at 5.35 pm on that day was due

iv.

TJO’s attempted welfare check at 5.35 pm on Sunday 17 January 2021 was cursory at best, given that the police reported that the VA could be seen (in the poor state he was in) by looking through the lounge window

there was evidence to suggest that TJO’s neglectful behaviour was pre-meditated: TJO had “logged in” to indicate that she had attend care calls, when in fact she had not

vi.

TJO took no follow up action on being unable to observe the VA or establish his wellbeing.