[2025] UKUT 219 (AAC)

Finding 2 is that the Appellant had neglected Teresa by failing to provide her with appropriate assistance following this fall, including leaving Teresa whilst she was on the floor outside to attend to the washing.

There is in truth relatively limited hard evidence to support this finding, at least in the terms in which it has been put. Nicola’s report recounts Susan’s observation that her ASC colleague (so evidence at least at third hand) thought the Appellant “seemed disinterested [sic] in the situation and did not volunteer any information about Teresa that might have helped. The Appellant did not call an ambulance a neighbour did.” Nicola also reported Susan’s message that the off-duty ambulance driver had said the Appellant “was more worried about the washing than about Teresa and not interested about Teresa.” We acknowledge, however, that there is a more detailed account in Susan’s e-mail to Nicola on the afternoon in question.

The Appellant appears to have been criticised for “not taking ownership of the situation”. However, the group of neighbours in question (who seemingly included at least one nurse) in effect assumed control of the situation, including calling an ambulance and it appears later cancelling the ambulance when they were satisfied that one was not actually needed. Thus, the most obvious type of assistance which could be provided had been supplied by the neighbours. The Appellant provided some direct assistance by way of making Teresa comfortable with a pillow and bringing out an umbrella as a sunshade. The Appellant told us that she was not worried about the washing, and we see no reason why she should have been, given the fact it was a very hot and sunny day.

We have reached the conclusion that this finding is questionable at best. Given the close involvement of the various neighbours it is difficult to see what else the Appellant could have done by way of the provision of appropriate assistance. We therefore conclude that Finding 2 was not made out and involves a mistake as to the facts. However, that is not to say that the Appellant’s actions were not without criticism. For example, she told us that she helped put Teresa in the recovery position, when that is not an appropriate action following a fall because of the risk of a spinal injury.