[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

at Home 1, the Appellant was allowed to use the lounge at night because the office was very cold;

TE’s evidence that, at Home 1, the Appellant was asleep was of doubtful reliability. If the Appellant was sleeping, why did TE not immediately wake him and report the matter as a safeguarding concern?;

after the Home 1 incident, and the Appellant’s resignation as a permanent Priory Group employee in April 2020, they asked him to become a bank support worker, which was indicative of their faith in him and belief that he was not a safeguarding risk;

the Appellant worked infrequently at Home 2 because, by late 2020, he was only a bank worker and had a number of other commitments. He had never worked there while a manager was on duty. The absence of a manager meant that the Appellant never had the opportunity to see any care plans (locked in manager’s office). At no point was the Appellant told about specific risk factors for these two young people, in writing or on a handover. All he was told was that they might try to move around and not stay in their bedrooms. The incident a few weeks earlier did not involve sexualised behaviour;

at Home 2, the two young people could not have been together from 2 a.m. because the Appellant would have noticed this on his hourly checks;