JT v Disclosure and Barring Service
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jacobs |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 29 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Safeguarding vulnerable groups - Adults’ barred list,Jacobs,E |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 05 April 2022 |
1
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ORDERS that no one shall publish or reveal:
the name or address of (a) JT who is the Appellant in these proceedings or (b)
any of the service users referred to in the decision or appeal documents;
any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of the
above or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings.
The decision itself will be made public, but the cover sheet may not, as it is not
part of the decision and identifies JT by name.
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: V/0123/2021
[2022] UKUT 29 (AAC)
JT V DISCLOSURE AND BARRING SERVICE
Decided following an oral hearing on 14 January 2022
Representatives
Appellant
Not represented
Disclosure and Barring
Service
Tim Wilkinson of counsel, instructed by Laura
Findlay of the Disclosure and Barring Service
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS from now on)
DBS Reference:
00889327410
Decision letter:
26 October 2020
As DBS made mistakes in the findings of fact on which its decision was based, the
Upper Tribunal, pursuant to section 4(6)(a) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006 (SVGA), directs DBS to remove the appellant from the adults’ barred list.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. The issues and how they arose
1. There are two issues in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
SV v DBS
...of barring cases by DBS was considered by the Upper Tribunal for the first time recently in JT v Disclosure and Barring Service [2022] UKUT 29 (AAC) (“JT v DBS”). This was an appeal against a decision of DBS to place a domiciliary home care support worker on the Adults’ Barred List notwiths......
-
MS v Decision and Barring Service (V)
...by the time of the oral hearing of this appeal the Upper Tribunal had considered these issues in two substantive appeals: JT v DBS [2022] UKUT 29 (AAC) and SV v DBS [2022] UKUT 55 (AAC), which decided that the Respondent does have the power to reopen closed 54. For the same reasons as are s......