Olliers DBS Team Recent Successful Cases

Olliers’ DBS team share some of their most recent successful Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) cases avoiding inclusion on the DBS Barred List and successful review and removal from the Barred List

Client A – DBS Minded to Bar  – Successfully avoided inclusion on the DBS Barred List

Client A was accused of miscounting children and leaving a child unsupervised on two separate occasions whilst working in a children’s nursery. All allegations were admitted by Client A but more context was required in order to alleviate any safeguarding concerns the DBS had.

We were able to provide evidence on behalf of Client A that, at the time of the above incidents, Client A was not provided with a specific role and would often be assigned where needed in the nursery throughout the day. On the allegations mentioned in the minded to bar letter, children had been added to the play areas or rooms without firstly informing Client A, and there were other colleagues who bore responsibility for their lack of communication and bad practice. We were able to evidence Client A’s accountability and remorse for their (albeit minor) part in the incidents, and were able to demonstrate Client A’s understanding of the seriousness of what could potentially have happened.

Client A has also worked in regulated activity for over 15 years, and we were able to use their extensive career history without any other concerns as mitigation against any ongoing risk.

We successfully argued against their inclusion on the Children’s Barred List.

Client B – DBS Minded to Bar – Successfully avoided inclusion on the Barred List

Client B was convicted of two offences of theft by employee by forging prescriptions for their own gain. In their capacity as a pharmacist, Client B used blank prescription pads to obtain opioid medication for personal use. These were primarily for pain relief following a serious injury but, after a period of depression, this became an addiction. Client B admitted to the allegations and was convicted as a result.

We were able to quote the Judge’s ‘summing up’ in which there were many positive comments made; making full and frank admissions at the earliest stage, significant and continuing steps to address addiction, and a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

We wrote persuasive representations against barring, stating that the conviction would always be disclosed on an enhanced DBS check which would allow any employer to make safer recruitment decisions but, primarily, that Client B was not a danger to vulnerable adults or children. No patients were harmed as a result of Client B’s actions; they were not given incorrect doses, nor deprived of their own medication.

We were able to evidence to the DBS that Client B had undertaken residential rehabilitation and is still engaging with a number of rehabilitation programmes to manage their addiction. Client B is also attending psychotherapy to better understand addiction and historic trauma as well as engaging in “return to practice” support.

The DBS decided not to place Client B on the barred lists following our representations.  

Client C – Paragraph 18A Review – Successful Review and Removal from Barred List

Client C was initially added to the barred list following allegations of harming their 3-week-old baby.    

Client C was accused of recklessly forcing a bottle into the mouth of their 3-week-old baby causing a tear to the frenulum. We were able to demonstrate that, as a result of covid, Client C and their partner could not engage in any face-to-face parenting courses and were faced with little help following the birth of their first child. Nursing became an issue very early on and the couple raised their concerns about reflux with the midwives but, again, as a result of covid, very limited assistance was received.

During a feeding session at 3 weeks old, Client C noticed their baby choking and removed the bottle immediately. Client C then noticed blood in their baby’s mouth and rang for an ambulance. Following triage, a paediatrician noticed the torn frenulum.

After nearly two years of investigation against the family, Client C was told the matter would be concluded by social services if one parent admitted to causing injury, or they would both lose custody of their child. Client C reluctantly admitted to the allegations in order that their child could at least stay with one biological parent.   

We were able to submit medical records that proved the child was also suffering from oral thrush which can also cause redness and soreness of the mouth, tenderness, cracks and bleeding, with pain or burning leading to difficulty feeding.

We were further able to demonstrate that Client C was not engaging in regulated activity at all.   

We ultimately secured a positive result for Client C in that they were removed from the Barred List.

Read more successful Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) ‘Minded to Bar’ cases here.   

Olliers Solicitors – Specialist Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) Lawyers

At Olliers, we have a specialist DBS team dealing with Minded to Bar cases. Our lawyers have extensive experience of drafting and submitting representations to the Disclosure and Barring Service to seek to avoid inclusion on the DBS Barred List. The team at Olliers are here to listen, empathise, understand and assist with your DBS case.

The team will present your case in the best possible way using our expertise and experience to advise on the best evidence to support our representations. 

Please contact our DBS department on 0161 834 1515 or by email to dbs@olliers.com to discuss how Olliers can assist you if you have received a ‘minded to bar’ letter from the DBS or have subsequently been placed on the barred list.