![[2024] UKUT 269 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Grant of permission to appeal
Grant of permission to appeal
Permission to appeal was given by the Upper Tribunal (Judge Citron) in a decision issued on 31 August 2023, on the sole ground that DBS made mistakes in its core factual finding, as follows:
per the account in her letter to DBS (in particular at pages 47 and 48), TJO did, in fact, reasonably attempt to perform her duties with regard to the VA on Saturday evening 16 January, Sunday 17 January morning and evening, and Monday morning 18 January (albeit that her attempts were unsuccessful); and, when she was unable to make contact with the VA, made reasonable attempts to inform her employer (albeit that those attempts were unsuccessful on the Saturday night and the Sunday morning and Sunday evening); DBS therefore made a mistake by finding that TJO “neglected” the VA;
TJO did not “admit” some or all of the things that DBS allege that she “admitted” in the course of an investigatory meeting on 20 January 2021: it is arguably evident from the transcript that TJO’s responses to some important questions were ‘non sequiturs’ or otherwise that there was not satisfactory communication between TJO and the person asking the question; for example:
Page 36:
MM: Did you report to the office that he asked you to leave?
TO: No, but I always tell the office. NT: But on this occasion you did not report to the office?
TO: No, that's just his character.
MM: But you know that you are meantto report this to the office?
TO: Yes, I know that I am meant to.
MM: So why didn't you report this?
TO: It's because that's how he is. That's his character.
Page 37:
NT: Did you call the office?
TO: No. I tried but I couldn't get through.
NT: Do you have an email address for the office?
TO: Yes, but this is normal for him.
Page 40:
MM: So it took you 2 days, 4 consecutive visits, of not seeing the service user you are doing a welfare check for, and for the neighbour to tell you that he has been taken to hospital for you to finally contact the office.
TO: But I called on Sunday.
NT: Can you evidence that?
TO: Yes.
[Shows NT her phone log]
NT: So I can see that 2 phone calls were made on Saturday evening at 18:00 [16/01/2021]. One of these looks like it has connected, the green phone sign indicates you spoke to someone.
MM: The phone call that is logged on your phone is when you contacted [W] to discuss concerns regarding Mrs EB which were discussed earlier. So this tells me that you had every opportunity to inform the office that there was a no reply with [the VA].
TO: But I always report. He does this all the time.
DBS should have made findings of fact about the wider context of TJO’s care for the VA, in particular findings about TJO’s notifying her employer and social services of the squalor in which the VA lived (see TJO’s account at page 45, at the bottom, and page 46) and the difficulties of gaining access to his home due to his refusal to cooperate (possibly caused by his mental health conditions) (see, for example, TJO’s account at pages 46 and 47).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Respondent made on 21 December 2021 (reference DBS6191 009472553290 ) to include TJO in the adults’ barred list is conf
- DBS’s decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- Grant of permission to appeal
- Documentary evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- Review of key evidence
- TJO’s email to W of Monday 18 January at 11.29 am
- TJO’s evidence
- Discussion: did DBS make mistakes in its core factual finding?
- Conclusions