Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 258 (AAC)

Fecha: 24-Jun-2024

Our conclusions as to mistakes of fact in DBS’s decision

Our conclusions as to mistakes of fact in DBS’s decision

47.

DBS accepted in its skeleton argument for the hearing that its core factual finding about 11 March 2021 was not one on which its decision was based; it follows that this factual finding is irrelevant for the purposes of the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this appeal.

48.

Turning to DBS’s other core factual findings, on which its decision was based, we find that DBS made mistakes in all of these:

DBS’s finding about AW on 17 March 2021 “failing to provide personal care to JB despite knowing that he was soiled” is mistaken because, as per our findings above, AW provided personal care to JB throughout the night, and made the decision not to change JB’s pad at around 6.45 am for the (entirely rational) reasons set out in our findings; JB was not “soiled” at this point; and AW’s decision-making cannot accurately be described as a “failure to provide personal care”;

DBS’s finding about AW on 17 March 2021 in relation to TH is mistaken because, as per our findings above, AW properly kept an eye on TH overnight and approached TH in the morning with a view to giving personal care; TH made it quite clear that he would not accept it from AW; it is not therefore accurate to say that AW did not “attend” to TH; and (in the circumstances as we have found them) it is obviously misleading (if technically accurate) to say that AW failed to notice and respond to vomit on his bed and did not carry out personal care;

DBS’s finding about AW on 17 March 2021 “falsifying” bowel monitoring checks is mistaken because, as per our findings above, it was a simple mistake on AW’s part to make the “5:30 am” entry on JB’s record.