![[2025] UKUT 219 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The fall incident
The fall incident
Introduction
As noted above, we acknowledged that the Appellant was put in a very difficult position with regard to acting as live in carer for Teresa. The Appellant started her role in May 2020. Her contracted hours were 8 a.m. until 10 p.m., but she had to do substantial care at night too, and was kept awake for a period of 4 or 5 weeks before a night-time carer was put in post. The Appellant suggested to Teresa’s social worker that Teresa really needed 1-2-1 personal care. The Appellant also made recommendations about installing a sensor mat and fitting a chain to the front door (see e.g. e-mails of 29 May 2020 at p.95) but these safeguards were not put in place. In the Appellant’s words at our hearing, “the agency told me to shut up and pushed me aside”. In written representations the Appellant referred to Teresa having had a total of 21 falls during her period of live-in care (p.85).
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal under section 4 of the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
- Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal, pursuant to section 4(6)(b) and (7)(b) of the 2006 Act
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- A summary of the background to the Barring Decision
- The Upper Tribunal oral hearing
- The legal framework for barring decisions
- The Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to bar the Appellant
- The Appellant’s grounds of appeal
- The Appellant’s oral evidence
- The fall incident
- The care agency’s account
- The Appellant’s account
- Finding 1
- Finding 2
- Finding 3
- The medication incident
- Finding 4
- Finding 5
- Other matters
- Disposal
- Conclusions