A summary of the factual background
A summary of the factual background
AA was employed by care company (called “VC”) as a support worker until his employment was terminated on 01 February 2022. AA had previously worked for several care companies whose work had been transferred, most recently to VC (which occurred in 2021). AA and other staff members were transferred across to VC under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. AA had been involved in care work since around 2006. His work in the company that transferred directly to VC, started on 15 March 2010. When his employment transferred to VC, and at the time of the allegations considered by DBS, AA’s role was as a Scheme Leader.
In late 2021, VC carried out an internal investigation in relation to matters in September 2021 regarding health concerns for a service user (“JL”) and AA’s discharge of his on-call duties on the evening of 12 December 2021. VC suspended AA from his duties on 21 December 2021 while the investigation took place. As a result of finding these matters (and another matter it had investigated at the same time) proven against AA, his employers terminated AA’s employment on 01 February 2022. AA appealed against that decision, but it was upheld by VC on 16 March 2022.
VC referred AA to the DBS on 06 April 2022. The DBS issued a Minded to Bar letter dated 17 November 2022 (page 130 of DBS bundle), in response to which AA’s legal representatives submitted a document called “Grounds of Resistance” which had been drafted for employment tribunal proceedings AA brought against VC, as well as character references in support of AA.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal and REMIT the matter to the Disclosure and Barring Service for a new decision
- A summary of the factual background
- The Barring Decision
- Appeal grounds
- The Upper Tribunal substantive oral hearing
- The legal framework for Barring Decisions
- AA’s oral evidence
- Assessing the Appellant’s oral evidence
- Mistake of fact argument: Allegation 1
- Did AA fail to seek medical assistance for a change in the behaviour of JL between 11 September 2021 and 04 October 2021?
- Did AA fail to upload documentation onto CMS before 29 September 2021, delaying the diagnosis and treatment of JL’s thrush?
- Mistake of fact argument: allegation 2
- Were mistakes of fact made by the DBS ones on which the Barring Decision was based?
- The error of law arguments
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 225 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)