[2024] UKUT 318 (AAC)

It was not in dispute that RR had drunk the Lambrini, that “company policy” was that alcohol was not to be drunk by support workers at the home, and that the Lambrini did not belong to RR.

RR emphasised that Lambrini was a light, sparkling drink (as opposed to an alcoholic spirit), and that he had drunk a relatively small amount (at the hearing he said it was 10 ml, although his earlier documentary evidence said it was 10-20 ml, or 20-30 ml). RR also argued that he had the service users’ implied permission to have the drink, as it was Christmas, and they did not object.

We find that Lambrini was an alcoholic drink and that RR did breach “company policy” by drinking alcohol at the home. We find that he drank a relatively small amount (a “shot” might be the best way to refer to the amount he drank). We find that he did not have the service users’ express permission prior to his drinking the Lambrini although he was entitled to infer from their body language that they did not object to him doing so.

We do not consider that DBS erred materially in failing to make findings about the relatively small amount of Lambrini RR drank, or that RR reasonably inferred from the service users’ body language that they did not object to his having a drink of their Lambrini. This is because the material finding by DBS was that RR drank some amount of alcohol in the home, and this was against “company policy”.