Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 040 (AAC)

Fecha: 14-Ene-2025

DBS’s decision

DBS’s decision

The decision was made under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). This provides that DBS must include a person in the adults’ barred list if

it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct,

it has reason to believe that the person is, or has been, or might in the future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults, and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.

Under paragraph 10, “relevant conduct” for the purposes of paragraph 3 includes conduct which endangers a vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a vulnerable adult; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a vulnerable adult if he (amongst other things)

harms a vulnerable adult

causes a vulnerable adult to be harmed

puts a vulnerable adult at risk of harm or

attempts to harm a vulnerable adult.

The letter (“DBS’s decision letter”) conveying DBS’s decision made the following factual findings, in support of its conclusion that KH had engaged in relevant conduct:

on 21, 24 and 25 January 2022, and on other unspecified occasions during KH’s tenure with domiciliary home care organisationfor which she worked as a carer, KH failed to wear her full PPE clothing as required by Covid 19 guidelines, and this amounted to neglect which placed service users at the risk of contracting Covid 19;

on or before 20 April 2022, whilst carrying out a care call with Ms M, a vulnerable adult, KH discussed personal matters with her which included themes of a sexual nature, and when Ms M asked KH to stop, KH did not do so and carried on;

on or before 22 March 2022, whilst on duty providing care to Ms E, a vulnerable adult, KH failed to complete her duties as required and spoke to Ms E in an inappropriate manner causing Ms E to become angry.

DBS’s decision letter made further findings of fact, to support its concerns and evaluation of risk:

that KH’s colleague (AR) had repeatedly warned/advised KH to wear her PPE properly when attending care calls, yet KH did not;

that KH had told a manager of the organisation she was working for, in a telephone conversation on Monday 24 January 2022, that she (KH) was wearing her PPE correctly, when in fact she wasn’t; the manager reiterated the importance of wearing PPE correctly in that conversation – yet the next day (Tuesday 25 January) KH was again observed, as part of a spot check by the employer, not wearing PPE correctly when engaging with service users.