[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

DBS’ decision letter included a finding of fact that “on the 13th December 2019 whilst working as a Night Support Worker at [Home 1] on waking nightshift, you slept on duty” (allegation/finding 1). The finding was based on the following analysis of the evidence and the Appellant’s representations against barring:

“on the waking nightshift of the 13th December 2019, you laid on the couch in lounge area and fell asleep on duty. It is accepted that you had raised concerns about the office condition and management were aware that the lounge could be used by staff. However, concerns remain that your actions led to a service user being unable to gain entry to the house in the early hours of the morning”;

“It is acknowledged from your representations that you suggest that it is one word against another, however the service user also confirmed they had witnessed you asleep. Therefore concerns are raised in your irresponsible and reckless behaviour, further supported by you confirming the service user had not returned home in your morning handover to CC, when in fact the service user had returned”;

“your suggestion that you were deep in prayer does not seem plausible, you were unable to hear the doorbell on multiple occasions, were unaware the service user was allowed into the house by your colleague and were unaware that your colleague and the service user witnessed you asleep on the couch”;

“you suggest the loudness of the television could also account for you not hearing the doorbell, however the information received from Priory that the doorbell is loud enough to be heard from the position even on this busiest of days is deemed credible.”