[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

at Home 2, no one ever told him that young people in his care displayed sexualised behaviour;

he had only worked at Home 2 on four or five occasions and recalls that, each time, he asked to see the young people’s care plans but was told they were locked away but “there were no specific areas of concern with regard to heightened risk factors”;

he was never told by LW, Home 2’s manager, that he needed to be in the office on the middle floor with the door open. When LW put this to him in interview, he categorically denied it yet his denials were omitted from LW’s record of the interview. He was not given any opportunity to agree the interview note and did not see it before his bank status was terminated;

he did not close the office door at Home 2 to read a book. He did so because the home had a ‘no light on the floor’ policy to minimise sleep disruption, which was also why staff were also encouraged not to engage with young people at night;

having reflected on events, the Appellant accepts that, although he requested care plans, he should not have passively accepted it when they were not provided. In future, he would insist on their provision.