Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 286 (AAC)

Fecha: 22-Jul-2024

No material mistake of fact

72.

Mr Reichhold submitted that it is not entirely clear, however, how and on what basis, the Appellant seeks to challenge the relevant DBS findings. In broad terms, the Appellant states in the Grounds that things are “not as have been stated” [5]. Mindful that the Appellant is unrepresented, and doing the best he could from the Grounds [5-6], he identified the following four factual challenges in relation to the Catheter Incident:

The Appellant claims that the allegation/finding that she “couldn’t be bothered” (to take the necessary/appropriate action) is untrue; the Appellant challenges any conclusion that she would put her own needs above a service user’s needs and/or have a “lack of care” toward a service user (“the Insufficient Interest Challenge”).

The Appellant claims (now) to have acted in line with alleged advice from a more senior/established/trained colleague (“LS”) (“the Acted on Advice Challenge”).

The Appellant claims to have asked for (but not been provided with) further/ formal training from the Employer, specific to her role at the relevant time, and regarding “care plans” in particular (“the Insufficient Training Challenge”).

The Appellant claims that work demands were “unmanageable”, leaving her no time to read X’s care plan (“the Lack of Time Challenge”).

73.

Mr Reichhold noted that by contrast, there does not appear to be any material challenge, on the facts, to the second finding of relevant conduct - findings arising from the photograph with the celebrity and the associated failure to comply with the Employer’s PPE and social media policies.