[2025] UKUT 98 (AAC)

In its Barring Decision Summary document under the heading “Evidence Evaluation’, the DBS explained how it assessed the evidence to arrive at its findings of fact. It said:

“This allegation was made by SB (Flag 2) and corroborated in part by the service user AG (Flag 3, 7)

[RW] admitted that she had to raise her voice to AG as he was deaf and asking him to go to his room but denied pushing him, pointing her finger in his face and threatening to knock him out (Flag 5, 8)

[RW] is inconsistent in her written statement and her responses in her disciplinary in her statement she states she was trying to put AG’s laundry in his room and he was in the doorway she states she asked him nicely to move out of the way several times and when he didn’t she moved him by putting her hands on his waist/hips. In her disciplinary she does not indicate that she had asked AG to move she just moved him to one side (Flag 5, 8, 9). This inconsistency lowers the credibility of her statement.

It must also be noted that in her Disciplinary [RW] lets slip that she “shouldn’t have pushed” AG and appears to quickly change what she is saying to “no moved him” (Flag 8).

[RW]’s employer asked her what she did with the laundry she would have been carrying when she moved the Service User. [RW] said she put it on the floor. The employer stated that the space either side of the room at the bottom of the corridor is quite narrow and putting washing on the floor and moving the Service User without having to step on or over the washing may have been difficult (Flag 8).

[RW]’s version of events would also indicate that she had placed priority of [sic] getting the household tasks done rather than interacting with AG. She talks about him misbehaving when he is requesting her attention and admits that at one point she did ask him to go to his room (Flag 8).

[RW] makes counter allegations against SB but provides no explanation as to why she did not report her concerns at the time or provides any evidence to substantiate her allegations. Furthermore she provides no explanation as to why SB would make malicious allegations against her and that in part are corroborated by AG (Flag 5, 8)

Given that [RW]’s statements lose credibility due to their inconsistencies, that there is no reason to doubt the credibility of SB’s or AG’s statements this allegation can be found proven on the balance of probabilities.”