[2024] UKUT 391 (AAC)

Mr Serr argued that AVS’s barring relates to CBL only so the issue of transferability (to the ABL) is irrelevant. So far as proportionality is concerned it is a high threshold for the UT to find a decision was disproportionate. The DBS has addressed proportionality extensively – see [237]. AVS demonstrated a pattern of conduct whereby he prioritised himself over a young looked after person for whom he was in loco parentis by abrogating his responsibility to attend to DM to social workers during a crisis, ignored the recommendations of social work professionals, and failed to adhere to rules for retained medication which led to an overdose. These were serious failings.

He contended that the impact of barring upon AVS however is limited-he would not be able to carry out a role as a foster carer and work in a voluntary capacity (although as of 2022 he had not been recommended for re-approval as a foster carer [74/82]). It in particular has no pecuniary impact on AVS.

Mr Serr submitted that the above failings both individually and cumulatively evidence serious relevant conduct and on-going risk justifying inclusion of AVS in the CBL. The appeal reveals no mistake of fact or law in the barring decision and permission to appeal should be refused.