Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 238 (AAC)

Fecha: 27-May-2025

DBS’s finding that between 22 January 2024 and 1 March 2024 whilst employed as a support worker for a charity supporting people with learning disabilities, AB failed to support service users in her ca

DBS’s finding that between 22 January 2024 and 1 March 2024 whilst employed as a support worker for a charity supporting people with learning disabilities, AB failed to support service users in her care in line with the service users’ wishes and establishedprocedures

40.

AB, consistent with her case as understood at the time of the permission decision, maintained in oral evidence that she had not been aggressive with a particular service user during an incident in a greeting card shop (consistent with her account in the documentary evidence, AB maintained that the service user had in fact shouted at her, not the other way round).

41.

Turning to the documentary evidence:

the termination letter from the charity (page 213 of the bundle) cited (in relation to AB)

failing to follow routine when supporting a service user to take their medication and the handling of medication; this was “clearly stated” in the support plan that AB had read and signed;

ii.

failing to report incidents correctly in line with the charity’s policy and procedures; and

iii.

performance concerns when supporting service users;

the charity’s “areas of concern” (in its ‘probation hearing workbook’) (page 218 of the bundle) included that

AB said that she put a particular service user’s medication in the “pot” and then gave this to the service user; contrary to what was said by the service user’s parent, AB did not put the medication in the palm of her hand and stand over the service user (as the service user would push AB away);

ii.

with regard to “suspected abuse” (being the incident in the greeting card shop), AB denied pushing the service user and shouting at her; the service user had shouted at a little boy (in the greeting card shop); AB had said to the service user – ‘let’s get out of the shop and calm down and go somewhere else and then go back to the card shop later’. The service user then started to shout at AB. The incident was not documented, due to oversight by AB.

42.

AB was cross examined about incidents involving her putting a particular service user’s medication in a “pot”. Her evidence was that staff at the charity had always put this service user’s medication on a plate, and that the service user’s father had wanted AB to continue doing this; but AB had, instead, put the medications in a pot, which, AB said, was the correct thing to do.

43.

On our weighing up of the evidence, we find it established that (i) AB failed to report the “greeting card shop incident” in line with the charity’s requirements; it is clear that the incident was an upsetting one for the service user, a vulnerable adult with a learning disability; and (ii) AB changed the way the charity had been administering medication to another service user, based on her own view of what was right, so departing from what the service user (and their parent) was used to and preferred. In our view, this is sufficient (without our needing to determine factually whether AB shouted at the service user in greeting card shop, or the other way round) to show that DBS did not make a mistake in finding that AB failed to support service users in her care in line with the service users’ wishes and established procedures.

Conclusion on mistake of fact

44.

It follows that, in our view, DBS did not make any mistake in a finding of fact on which its decisions were based.