[2024] UKUT 391 (AAC)

This finding is addressed in the DBS submissions and evidence relied upon above. The DBS submits that the finding is a rational and one it was entitled to make the perpetrator was said to be the owner of the business and called by AVS’s first name A[]. This is AVS’s first name and he has confirmed that he was the only registered director of the business at the time [221]. Further, AVS has never named the person he accuses of being the perpetrator AVS’s statement para 28 [282] although he has offered to.

This allegation is addressed in the Appellant’s letter of representations [para 59 to 63] and the Notice and Grounds [p201, para 55 to 56] and further submissions on behalf of the Appellant [p273].

The Appellant's witness statement in June 2023 makes clear that this allegation has never been accepted by him [p281-282, para 27 to 29].

The Appellant relied on his earlier representations in the response to the Minded to Bar letter of April 2022 [114-115, 150-152] and the Respondent, made no further attempts to investigate, verify or undermine the Appellant's account which was in the following terms:

This finding has been consistently denied by the Appellant. He relied on the fact that the original LADO report and the police investigation of 2018 decided the matter should be taken no further, yet it was revived in a further LADO in 2021.

We accept the Appellant’s evidence on the balance of probabilities.

The evidence relied upon by the Respondent is internally inconsistent. The Appellant complained to the local authority on 3 November 2021 [150, see also 115], noting that the police in 2018 only discussed a complaint about an imitation firearm rather than anything concerning pornography or inappropriate comments to young women. Again, the Appellant's evidence that this was all that was discussed was supported by the evidence before the Respondent from the LADO meeting police contribution in 2018.

We are satisfied that it is unlikely that the Appellant would have been approved in 2020 as a foster carer for vulnerable children if the LADO had evidence or serious concerns of an allegation such as this back in 2018.

No reasons appear within the BDP for rejecting the Appellant's response to this allegation, other than "there [is] no evidence to support the Appellant's claim that it was his colleague and not him" [221].

The LADO documentation is unclear and unreliable and the Respondent was mistaken in making this finding of fact. The Respondent has clearly accepted, without question, the content of the LADO report, noting "As shown in Allegation 1, the information provided by DCST has been assessed as a credible source of evidence" [220]. Further, as noted above, the LADO reports consisted of untested and anonymous hearsay evidence.

There is no acknowledgement that the evidence considered in relation to this allegation was multiple, anonymous hearsay, or apparently even considered the potential for mistaken identity. The Appellant's personal statement is evidence and ought not to have been rejected without reason. The Appellant's statement [para 26 to 28] and oral evidence supports this finding having been made in error on balance.

Moreover, the Respondent ought to have been more alive to the breakdown of the relationship between Children’s services and the Appellant and the potential that this coloured the LADO investigation and outcome. The Respondent gave evidence that the LADO were actively considering whether they could rely upon the Appellant's conduct to form a criminal harassment complaint [p63-66]. The Appellant gave evidence about being mocked by social workers, about which he complained and received an apology. It is apparent that there was a degree of antipathy between the Appellant and social workers / children’s services by the time DM was removed from his care.

Having accepted the Appellant’s oral evidence, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this finding is not established in any part (including any of the sub-findings regarding the gun, the pornography and the alleged inappropriate comments). We accept the Appellant evidence that this allegation does not relate to him and contains mistakes of fact. This is supported by the evidence of the local authority [p49] that "There has been no previous safeguarding concerns" and the fact that the Appellant was previously cleared to be a foster parent in 2020.

We are satisfied that in making this finding proved on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent materially erred in fact. This mistake of fact was relied upon in the Final Decision Letter and in the BDP in relation to this finding [p228]. The mistakes of fact were material to the risk assessment and ultimate decision to bar.