[2025] UKUT 079 (AAC)

It is agreed that in the summer of 2023 the Appellant was working as a care assistant at the nursing and dementia care home at which MW, a vulnerable adult with dementia, resided. The Appellant accepts that this amounts to “regulated activity” for the purposes of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “SVGA”).

On 15 June 2023 the Appellant started her shift at about 8 pm. On that shift the Appellant and her colleague JN were assigned to attend to the personal care of resident MW, who required two care assistants. While the Appellant was in MW’s room with JN, at around 9:30 pm, MW fell to the floor and was returned to her bed.

A “night duty report” meeting took place at about 11:45 pm between staff nurse OB and the three care assistants on duty (the Appellant, JN and PK). At this meeting JN told Nurse OB that MW had bumped her head on the cot bumper of her bed and that everyone was to monitor her, though she exhibited no bruising. Neither the Appellant nor JN said at this meeting that MW had experienced a fall. At the end of the shift, shortly before 8 am on 16 June 2023, Nurse OB told the Appellant that MW had a swollen bruised right knee and hip and asked the Appellant whether MW had had a fall, and the Appellant confirmed that she had had a fall.

On 16 June 2023 the Appellant’s employer initiated an investigation into the events of the shift of 15 June 2023 (the “Incident”). On 16 June 2023 the Appellant was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. JN, who was still serving his probationary period, was dismissed.

The investigation involved the investigating manager interviewing the Appellant and her colleagues JN and OB, as well as examining the resident safety check charts and the daily notes entry in relation to 16 June 2023.

The investigation resulted in findings made on 23 June 2023 that the Appellant had:

The investigating manager recommended that the allegations should proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing was held on 20 July 2023, at which the Appellant was accompanied by her union representative. The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was a finding that the Appellant had:

The Appellant was dismissed for gross misconduct on the basis of those findings. A referral was made to the DBS, which commenced its own investigation. That investigation involved a paper review of the documentation supplied by the Appellant’s employer. No witnesses were interviewed.

The DBS wrote to the Appellant to inform her that it was minded to place her name on the Adults’ Barred List and to invite her to make written representations should she disagree with her proposed barring.

In response, the Appellant made written representations to the DBS (see the undated letter at pages [77]-[83] of the appeal bundle) (the “Appellant Representations”). In the Appellant Representations the Appellant gave an account of the Incident. She said that MW had fallen while her back was turned as she was attending to MW’s bedding. As such, she didn’t see the fall, but she did hear it. She said JN immediately picked MW up singlehandedly, and she had immediately run to tell the nurse in charge (OB) that MW had fallen and JN had put her back into bed. She said that the nurse nodded in response to her report, which the Appellant took to mean that she had taken note of her report and would take the necessary immediate actions. The Appellant said she didn’t “recheck” with the nurse because she had already reported the incident to her, and she heard nothing from the nurse until around midnight, when Nurse OB called the three care assistants on duty to discuss the service users for the night duty report as usual.

The Appellant said that during this meeting Nurse OB confirmed that she had checked on MW and found some bruises on her hand. Nurse OB asked JN specifically what had happened in MW’s room, to which JN responded that MW’s head had hit the bed rail, and this was the first time that the Appellant had become aware that MW had hit her head.

The Appellant said in her representations that at about 8 am on the morning of 16 June 2023 Nurse OB called her into MW’s room and showed her MW’s swollen leg and at this point the Appellant told her that the “bang” sound she heard was the main reason why she had rushed to report the falling incident to her the previous night, and reminded Nurse OB that she (i.e. Nurse OB) had herself reported having inspected MW. The Appellant said that on her way home she received a call on her mobile from Nurse OB, suggesting that “we” should say that MW had had her fall in the morning instead of the previous evening, but she refused to lie about the incident.

The Appellant denied acting in a manner that could have endangered MW or any other service user. She said that she reported both the fall and the inappropriate returning of MW to her bed immediately to the nurse in charge, and she expected the nurse and her colleague JN, who was responsible for room 41 (MW’s room), to do their jobs. She said that her reporting of these matters meant that she hadn’t falsified her account, and indeed she had resisted the nurse’s attempt to get her to lie.

Notwithstanding the Appellant’s representations, on 23 April 2023 in its Final Decision Letter the DBS informed the Appellant that it had decided to place her name on the Adults’ Barred List.