Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 318 (AAC)

Fecha: 30-Jul-2024

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

The decision was made under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). This provides that DBS must include a person in the adults’ 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 vulnerable adults, and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.

Under paragraph 10, “relevant conduct” for the purposes of paragraph 3 includes conduct which endangers a vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a vulnerable adult; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a vulnerable adult if he (amongst other things)

harms a vulnerable adult or

causes a vulnerable adult to be harmed

puts a vulnerable adult at risk of harm or

attempts to harm a vulnerable adult.

The letter (“DBS’s decision letter”) conveying DBS’s decision:

stated that DBS was satisfied that

Finding 1: on Christmas Day 2021 RR did not adhere to company policy when he drank alcohol while in the workplace - at the end of his shift, RR drank “Lambrini” belonging to service users (and did not have their permission to do so);

Finding 2: on 10 January 2022, RR said he planned to drink alcohol while on a sleep-in shift if he could not sleep;

Finding 3: on unspecified dates prior to 17 January 2022, RR did not adhere to PPE guidelines: he did not wear PPE properly – he had his mask under his nose on occasions;

Finding 4: on unspecified dates prior to 17 January 2022, RR did not follow people’s support plans or usual routines and had not read all the available information. RR also had not listened to staff or paid attention when told or shown things;

Finding 5: on unspecified dates prior to 17 January 2022, RR behaved in a way that affected service user JP’s behaviour, causing him to not eat or drink more frequently when RR was supporting him;

RR had engaged in relevant conduct in relation to vulnerable adults because he had engaged in conduct which endangered a vulnerable adult or was likely to endanger a vulnerable adult;

ii.

found it established that RR had not followed service user JP's usual routine when his stoma was to be changed, as RR did not notify anyone that the stoma was ready to be changed and proceeded to get JP dressed; DBS stated that this caused JP to be upset when he had to be undressed slightly for the stoma to be changed;

iii.

stated that DBS considered that in future RR could repeat his behaviour by not following policies and procedures or residents’ support plans or usual routines.