[2025] UKUT 228 (AAC)

LC confirmed the contents of her statement dated 17 October 2024. She explained she was aware of the problems VMAC had in his personal life while at AT. LC stated she saw no risk from VMAC to vulnerable adults while she worked with him, over the period from November 2020 to around December 2021. LC said there was a period of about 3 months when she left the company, but otherwise she was VMAC’s direct line manager, and she resumed as his line manager from April 2022 onwards. When line managing VMAC, LC described a small team of three, and a small office where they worked very closely. VMAC might have 10 to 15 clients at any point in time.

LC told us every member of staff would have had a risk assessment completed, there is a template at AC that would have been followed, for all job roles. It highlights all risks within the role, including slips, trips and falls, health and safety and any front line working, including lone working, for example. Asked about the statement in the risk assessment dated 30 September 2022, LC said she didn’t believe she had made that statement, but she would agree with that comment. She said VMAC had to work with chaos and changeable behaviours. Clients were aged 18 to 65 and they could be working with violent offenders, drug addicts, alcoholics, even repetitive homelessness causes its own trauma.

LC described VMAC as calm, resilient and intelligent. He was resilient in the sense that the people they worked with could be quite frustrating and the work can be quite repetitive. Her experience was that VMAC would not give up on challenging clients, he would try another way of working with them, another angle or approach, and he would not leave a stone unturned if he could. In terms of calmness, LC said this was a key attribute for VMAC. She described, as a prime example, a resident that she and VMAC worked with intensively to support. VMAC had a very good working relationship with this person, who then stole VMAC’s phone from him. VMAC had to report it to the police and watch the CCTV footage. While LC would have been furious if it had happened to her, VMAC kept extremely calmed, even when he was telephoned as the on-call manager. LC said the enormity of this event was not only the fact VMAC had his phone stolen, it was also the massive breakdown in trust in an instant with the person with whom VMAC had felt he had a good working relationship.

Asked by the Tribunal, LC said she could not confirm whether she completed the risk assessment for VMAC, or it was her manager (JM). It would have been one of the two of them. It was potentially her, but she could not say for certain. When VMAC arrived with them, his current DBS certificate was not affected but they were aware that the DBS were investigating. VMAC had disclosed the issue at interview, so AC made a decision to risk assess him and understand what was needed. The issue was how AC could mitigate the risk, because VMAC had all the tools and skills (for the role), so how could they mitigate the risk raised by the DBS investigation, mainly around the lone working VMAC would be asked to do.

LC said safeguarding is in everything she does, every day, and the risk of vulnerable adults and what they can be exposed to. She thought they looked at the issue in the context of having worked with VMAC previously and knowing how he interacted with adults and the situations he was put into. This was hand in hand with the incident they were aware of, which to their knowledge was a one-off. Knowing the DBS investigation was going through, and the fact VMAC would be on probation any way, they could mitigate the risk of lone working and have people work alongside VMAC to ensure there were no issues.

LC clarified the risk they were mitigating was how VMAC would interact physically and verbally with the people he worked with and how he would deal with situations where clients might push things verbally and physically. They were considering how VMAC presented himself verbally, they would want to ensure he had a calm manner, and about how he was dealing with clients, maintaining professional boundaries ensuring his physical presence was appropriate.

LC described AC carrying out a second risk assessment in September 2022 and then seeking advice from Croner, a human resources company, in October 2022. AC sought advice because the DBS investigation was taking quite a time to come through and they wanted to understand whether they could extend VMAC’s probation or not.

Mr Richards asked LC about the wording of the April 2022 risk assessment in terms of the allegations. These were stated to be that in November 2021, VMAC slapped his 9-year-old stepson around the face and his wife called the police to report him. LC said the wording would have come from VMAC’s disclosure at interview. LC said that to her knowledge, they knew that VMAC hitting his stepson was a one off. LC confirmed she was not aware of the other matters talked about in the hearing (which Mr Richards described as VMAC appearing to admit to social services that he had pushed his stepson, clenched his fist and had a broader problem with his non-verbal communication and behaviours). Asked if she was aware of the other incidents in the background when AC carried out the risk assessment, LC stated she was only aware of the one disclosed.