[2025] UKUT 219 (AAC)

Finding 3 is that the Appellant had neglected Teresa by refusing to provide the neighbour who was an off duty Private Ambulance Driver with up-to-date medical information for him to assess Teresa’s condition, when he was attending to her following her fall.

We can deal with this third and last finding in relation to the fall incident fairly shortly. Again, the DBS case is premised on rather sketchy information. Nicola’s report simply states that the neighbour in question “asked Teresa’s name, date of birth etc. The Appellant gave him an old care file from the previous agency and said she could not show him Teresa’s details.” Susan’s e-mail stated that the gentleman in question “advised that when he asked the care worker what the lady’s name and date of birth was she did not know the answer. He asked her for the details for the care agency and she brought out an old folder from a previous agency with old details. When they looked through and asked for other details the care worker then told them she did not have any more as they are all on a portal and she couldn’t show him.” The DBS’s case, in reliance on this limited evidence, was that the Appellant was being deliberately obstructive.

The Appellant’s case is rather different. She was plainly well aware of the importance of client confidentiality. She did not know the off-duty ambulance driver and knew neither his line of work nor that he was a first responder. She states that she told him Teresa’s name and date of birth but the male neighbour ignored her. She also asserts that he went into the bungalow and came out with the previous care agency’s hard copy care file which he had found in the kitchen.

Having read the documents on file and the Appellant’s representations, and considered her oral evidence, we have formed the view that the off-duty ambulance driver adopted a somewhat overbearing manner in relation to the Appellant. We do not consider it likely that the Appellant refused to disclose Teresa’s name or date of birth – it was evident in any event that Teresa was both a very elderly and a very vulnerable individual. We have seen no evidence to contradict the Appellant’s further response that up-to-date details were held on the current care agency’s portal. We are furthermore not satisfied that there was any up-to-date medical information which would have been of use to those assisting Teresa and which the Appellant wrongly held back.

We therefore find the DBS made a material mistake of fact in relation to Finding 3.