Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 219 (AAC)

Fecha: 12-Jun-2025

Finding 5

61.

Finding 5 was that the Appellant had failed to notify the next live-in carer (Karen) during their handover, or the on-call person at the care agency, that she had not given James his morning medication.

62.

The Appellant does not dispute that she did not notify the on-call person at the care agency that she had not given James his morning medication. Her explanation is that she had no reason to do so as she had told Karen that she had not given James his morning medication. Finding 5 therefore turns on whether the Appellant did indeed so advise the new carer. There are conflicting accounts on this point from Karen and the Appellant respectively.

63.

Karen’s account is recorded in the contemporary note made by Nicola as to Karen’s complaint about the poor handover:

The Appellant left at 11.15. When Karen asked for a handover the Appellant said you have been here before the only change is Client’s medication is now in original boxes and not in blister packs… Karen didn't know if Client had had morning meds… The Appellant said she left early after asking Karen if that's okay. The Appellant took gloves with her. The Appellant did not give James his medication on Sunday morning as she couldn't sign in or see the medication on the activities. She said she handed this over to Karen but Karen knew nothing about this and said the handover was very poor and the Appellant was ready to leave as soon as she arrived. The Appellant had her coat on and was worried about missing her train.

64.

Furthermore, as noted by Nicola in the minute of the investigation meeting, the failure to administer the morning medication “was only noticed because the other Carer found James’s breakfast in the microwave which made her question whether medication had been administered”.

65.

The Appellant’s account is very different. It is summarised in her written representations (e.g. at p.244):

Accusation about medication

This accusation is not in line with the process I had been trained on, namely that you cannot give medicines to a client if you do not have a means of recording that you have done available. In this instance, the electronic application was not available to me and no alternative means of recording what I had given to the client, James, had been provided to me. I was due to hand over to another colleague at 2pm. However, she arrived early at around 10:15am to take over from me. I explained that I had not administered the morning medicines to James for the reasons outlined above, and I asked her to do so as she had access to the necessary electronic application. We both left James at around 1pm and my understanding was that she had given him his medicines.

66.

We do not consider on the balance of probabilities that there is any mistake of fact in the DBS’s Finding 5. It relies on a detailed contemporary complaint made by the new live-in carer. We can see no reason why Karen would have fabricated her account and gone to the trouble of visiting the care agency office to make that complaint. That report also contains a level of detail, for example as to Karen finding James’s breakfast still in the microwave, which adds to its overall credibility.

67.

We therefore find no material mistake of fact or error of law in relation to Finding 5.