Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 258 (AAC)

Fecha: 24-Jun-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 vulnerable adult (or child) or is likely to endanger a vulnerable adult (or child), or which, if repeated against or in relation to a child (or vulnerable adult), would endanger them or would be likely to endanger them; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a vulnerable adult (or child) 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 11 March 2021 AW failed to provide care to JB when he was up and ready to be supported

on 17 March 2021 AW

failed to provide personal care to JB despite knowing that he was soiled

ii.

did not attend to TH and therefore failed to notice and respond to dried vomit on TH's bed and did not carry out personal care

iii.

falsified bowel monitoring checks for a vulnerable adult

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

ii.

stated that DBS was satisfied that AW 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 AW 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 on three occasions AW failed to provide care to vulnerable adults; that DBS recognised that on one of these occasions it was reasonable for AW to have refused to provide care as it was nearing the end of her shift; however, the other two occasions showed that AW had failed to carry out her role and provide care. DBS recognised that for one of them AW was aware that the vulnerable adult required care as his pad was wet;

stated that DBS was satisfied that AW’s behaviour showed her to be irresponsible in her attitude towards care to vulnerable adults and as such has exposed them to physical and emotional harm; AW intentionally ignored a wet pad, then failed to check on a vulnerable adult that resulted in a vulnerable man being left in bed with vomit on him and the bed; and he had soiled himself. AW showed herself to be irresponsible in that she falsified checks that she had carried out regarding bowel movements of a vulnerable adult. DBS was satisfied that these acts were intentional and had exposed the vulnerable to harm;

vi.

stated that DBS was satisfied that AW’s behaviour was not a one-off occurrence and that AW repeatedly failed in her role to provide care whilst working in a position of trust; that AW’s behaviour caused emotional harm and had the potential to cause physical harm; DBS was satisfied that instead of attempting to provide care (to a person who had in the past refused it) AW did not even attempt to do so, thinking it would be refused.