[2024] UKUT 239 (AAC)

Finding 1

She had been working at the home and took J out in the late afternoon / evening in her car and stopped and got the two staff dinner from the fish and chips shop on the way back. J had not had tea at the Home so she bought her some food from the fish and chips shop. It was agreed by the duty manager that it would be fine for her to pay for J’s food out of J’s pocket money and this could be deducted from the pocket money later that evening. She got the food – and when she got back to the Home in boot of the car she had a box of old Harry Potter toys that she was going to get rid of by giving them to charity. J took a Harry Potter plastic wand out and asked if she could hold it and she said it was fine. She then dished up the food and had to sort out the money so J could pay her back for food she had bought.

She mentioned the wand that J had on her to the staff and was sure that J was allowed to keep a Harry Potter wand. She agreed with the other staff that she would retrieve the wand from J while J was asleep. An incident happened just before bed. She was ready to sign out but got into an incident with one of the children who lived at the address. By the time it was written up in the paperwork it was late – she normally finished at 10pm. She then said all she had to do was to get all the money tomorrow – the food did not come out her budget. The money for the staff’s meals came out of the house budget and that was fine. She notified the others that J said that still had the wand and J then went to fall asleep – and she intended that the night staff get the wand off J while she was asleep.

The next day the manager called in and said it had been reported that she had bought food out of her own pocket and gave J toys and was not allowed to give things. She explained that everything was in the book for what happened with the incidents and thought she had cleared it up and got the wand back off J. The manager explained she could not give J toys and she went through to the main office and explained that there was no problem. It was decided by the main duty manager that there was nothing malicious and she thought it had all been dropped and nothing else would come of it. She could not understand why it was later pursued.

J did not use her phone to access Spotify / J only and simply chose the music from the phone and it went through the stereo in the car.

When she looks back, she should have fought what her former employer was saying about the incident but she was quite new to the job and the company never supported the staff. She felt pressured during the disciplinary meeting and just accepted the allegation. She accepted that she would take the extra training - and that was not an issue – and updated her training. She is clear that at the time she said to the employer that she did not do anything wrong and she did not buy J food with her own money and it was from the house budget. There was no giving of a toy. She told the employer that J had taken the wand. She had used her own car for the trip as the employer had asked staff to use personal cars rather than company cars. Everyone was aware and noted to remove the wand from J. J was a child with severe autism and attachment problems so they would know that they could not just go in and take it off her. They had to ask night staff to remove it and put in the office.

She did say this all in the meeting but felt pressured to accept the allegations and didn’t have any support from the managers to try and show them there was no problem.

There was no dropping off food for a family member on the trip and she did not understand and J had never met her daughter or came to her house. However, the company would allow members of staff to come to the Home and they had met her daughter before. She was not trying to blame others but it was just so much about the company – she was not seeking to engage in tit for tat but trying to explain what was going on.

She was present when N arrived at the Home and she was specifically told that N was not allowed to be supervised one to one and needed 2:1 care as he made up accusations. The company did not let staff supervise at 2:1 ratios and made them supervise children at 1:1. The children were from difficult backgrounds and put into care.

She did build a relationship with N and built a working relationship and she was his main carer at the time. They did a lot of work around his girlfriend being pregnant and she went with him to supermarkets and looked at baby food and clothes There was quite a good relationship with N.

Another boy moved in. When N came the first day he gave her his materials for smoking cannabis and said while she was there he would not smoke cannabis. She had done work with him to stop him smoking cannabis but another boy moved in who was told could smoke cannabis on the grounds. He got N into smoking into cannabis. She reported multiple times that this was happening.

By April 2021 she had bad personal problems at her own home and had to leave work and she had to care for her own children. She therefore gave in her notice to the company and was signed off sick and depressed by the doctor. It was nothing to do with work but the company came back to her and said they did not accept her doctor’s note and they said would dismiss her for gross misconduct unless she worked out her notice. She said she was depressed and could not work and went off sick. While off sick she received the accusation relating to N. One of colleagues working there spoke to her and she said she had spoken to N and he accepted he made up these accusations and he confided to her colleague that he was annoyed she had left all of sudden and that she had gone off sick.

N admitted to her colleague that he made up all the accusations. She offered him the care at the time but thinks N may have been upset because she left without saying goodbye to him.

There was no evidence of N coming back to her home and he did not. He did not come back to her home high on cannabis or smoke cannabis there. All staff said he was fine and not under the effects of cannabis. Another member of staff who dropped her off at home one night and had N in the car and this maybe where he came up with the allegation that he had been to her home. She did not take him to her home.

The allegation was just his word against hers and she disputed it. She told the company that the car was tracked and dashcams and could track where they had been and asked them to check the tracker and they refused – this would have proved her innocence that she did not take N to her home.

It was just a case of her feeling they were like pushing her out of the company and they were angry that she left without working her notice but she did not ask to put in any official complaint about the company and the way they treated the staff and leaving them 1:1 rather than 2:1 which was meant to be. She feels finding the misconduct proved against her was a get out clause by the company to stop her from leaving without working her notice.

There’s no concrete evidence and N did not go to her house nor come back from any drive they went on stoned – or under the influence of cannabis and every member of staff agreed and no one witnessed that. There were no findings to prove that N went to her house or came back stoned after being out with her in the car. The staff could have checked the dash cam (dashboard camera) and seen the route taken and it was out towards R[].

There was no evidence to say that she had done any of this. She had worked in care since she was 15 years old and it was not in her nature and not something she would do – not put a child in care at risk and not put her own children in risk. She referred to her character references.

She did not take N to her own home – the tracker would prove this and she never dropped him at her house. When he was in the car once and she was dropped off by another member of staff not at her house but a bus stop near and not at her front door so N could not see where her house was so N never saw her house. This was on a completely separate night to the one in question and N never came to her house.

The DBS Barring had negatively affected her life and she had been working in care since 15 and did not know anything else. It’s one of the worst feelings in the world and someone to make the false accusation. She has 2 children of her own with autism and schizophrenia and that there is nothing else she wanted to do with her life other than care.

The company was awful and she did contact the BBC as they did a documentary about him and it. Some of the houses they operated got shut down for neglect and J got neglected and documentary highlighted the company was awful. Staff were there to do a job and help look after children in a difficult situation in their lives.

She worked full time and now works full time in housing association. Everything she had done in her whole life was in care and the character references demonstrate she was caring. As well as working as she had done a lot of work with her referees and looked after those who can’t get carers and took one of her referees on holiday who is a wheelchair user with cerebral palsy. She used to go to her house at night and put her to bed and it had a massive impact on her as she has not been able to do take on that caring role since the barring decision but this person is one of the character references and she changed her life.