Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 270 (AAC)

Fecha: 13-May-2025

Heading

UA-2024-000114-V

[2025] UKUT 270 (AAC)

THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

Between:

Appellant

- v -

Disclosure and Barring Service

Respondent

Before: Judge Sarah Johnston sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal, Tribunal Member Elizabeth Stuart-Cole, Tribunal Member Elizabeth Bainbridge

Decision date:

Hearing date: 13 May 2025

Mode of hearing: CVP

Representation:

Appellant: Represented herself

Respondent: Tim Wilkinson instructed by DAC Beachcroft

On appeal from:

the decision of the DBS communicated

in a letter dated: 10/10/2023

DBS reference: 01012303220

ANONYMITY ORDER

1. On 30 August 2024, the Upper Tribunal made an order protecting the following people’s identity. The Upper Tribunal now remakes the order and adds to it anonymising the names of the witnesses in the written evidence who made statements. Given that this decision will be published, we anonymise using descriptions rather than names.

2. Pursuant to rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)Rules 2008, and for the reasons the DBS gives in its letter of1/8/2024, the tribunal grants the application and prohibits thedisclosure or publication of:

A. The names of the following individual or

B. Any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify any of

them:

JA – the person who was cared for by the agency

HG – the carer with the appellant who told her not to use the oil

KG – the carer who was with HG the next day and to whom JA made the disclosure

ACF – the carer on duty with the appellant at teatime

MJ – the carer on duty with the appellant in the evening

SD – an employee of the care agency

YN – the appellant

3. Any breach of the order at paragraph 2 above is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and punished accordingly (section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups: Adults’ barred list (65.2), Children’s barred list (65.1), Appeal allowed; mistake of fact in DBS decision (65.9), Directed removal from list (65.19).

The decision of the Tribunal was that there was a mistake of fact in the DBS decision in finding that an allegation against the appellant was proved. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the appellant should be removed from the Adults’ Barred list and the Children’s Barred List.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION