Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 238 (AAC)

Fecha: 27-May-2025

DBS’s finding that whilst employed at the nursing home, AB deliberately and repeatedly called a service user by the wrong name in the presence of the service user

DBS’s finding that whilst employed at the nursing home, AB deliberately and repeatedly called a service user by the wrong name in the presence of the serviceuser

31.

In her oral evidence, AB said that she used to call the service user in question “our princess” (rather than her name, _eni); AB maintained, consistent with her case as understood at the time of the permission decision, that she had a particularly good relationship with this service user.

32.

As to the documentary evidence:

RG’s email of 6 January 2023 (to the nursing home) (page 93 of the bundle), as well as her interview on 28 February 2023, records that, earlier on the day of RG’s email, AB kept calling the service user in question “_emi”, and that AB did this all the time; and when RG corrected her, AB said that the service user in question “responds to anything – insinuating [the service user] responds to anything due to her learning disability”;

the investigation interview with AB on 10 March 2023 records AB as admitting that she was always pronouncing the service user in question’s name wrong (page 59 of the bundle).

33.

The evidence seems to us clear that AB regularly called the service user, in her presence, “_emi”, when her name was actually “_eni”; the only real question (as to whether DBS’s factual finding was mistaken) is whether this conduct was “deliberate” on AB’s part; we prefer the evidence indicating that it was deliberate, as we were not persuaded that AB was not reasonably able to pronounce “_eni” correctly, if she put her mind to it. A further question is therefore whether DBS made a mistake in not finding, in addition, that AB was fond of this service user and generally got along well with her. We answer that question in the negative: we do not think it would have changed the outcome, had DBS found those additional facts, as the fact of AB refusing to adhere to standard practice in relation to vulnerable persons (by taking care to use their correct names), and doing so in the face of colleagues asking her to change her conduct, only reinforces DBS’s rationale for barring, as set out in the quotation from the ‘barring decision document’ in paragraph 13 above.