Former Care Manager Successfully Overturns DBS Minded-to-Bar Notice in London

The Client

A former registered London care manager faced possible inclusion on both the Children’s Barred List and Adults’ Barred List following CQC-related concerns about staffing, medication, safeguarding and an incident involving a service user. After detailed representations addressing the factual background, remediation and future safeguarding risk, the DBS took no further action.
Represented by Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co

The background

Our client had been the registered manager of a domiciliary care company. The DBS was considering whether to bar her following concerns arising from an incident involving a service user and wider questions about staffing levels, medication management and safeguarding practices within the service.

She did not seek to deny that mistakes had been made. However, she disputed important aspects of the way the incident had been characterised and maintained that her actions had taken place during exceptional operational pressure, when two members of staff had failed to attend and she was heavily pregnant.

The representations therefore needed to do two things: correct the factual picture where it was inaccurate, while also addressing the genuine management and safeguarding concerns in a candid and evidence-based way.

Our approach to the DBS representations

We prepared detailed representations focused on the evidence, the steps our client had taken since the concerns arose and, critically, whether she presented any current or future safeguarding risk.

• Challenged the factual account of the service-user incident where it did not accurately reflect what had happened.
• Placed the wider CQC concerns in their proper operational context without minimising the seriousness of safe staffing, medication and safeguarding responsibilities.
• Documented the corrective action taken, including management changes, policy reviews and a detailed action plan.
• Compiled substantial remediation evidence covering safeguarding, safe medication practice, risk assessment and person-centred care.
• Explained the client’s changed professional circumstances: the care business had closed, she was no longer a registered manager and she had moved into a supervised adult nursing degree.
• Focused the DBS on whether the historic concerns demonstrated a continuing risk that made barring necessary and proportionate.

Remediation was supported by evidence, not promises

A central strength of the case was that our client could show concrete change. She had not simply asserted that the same problems would not happen again.

She completed substantial continuing professional development and engaged an experienced consultant to strengthen her understanding of safeguarding, incident reporting, risk assessment and care management. The supporting material demonstrated that she had reflected on what had gone wrong and had taken practical steps to improve her professional knowledge and decision-making.

That distinction mattered. In a DBS case, expressions of regret or good intentions may carry limited weight unless they are supported by evidence of insight, learning and remediation.

A materially different professional setting

The care company later ceased operating and our client began training as an adult nurse. We submitted that this materially changed the assessment of future risk.

She was no longer operating a care business or carrying the same management responsibilities. Her future practice would instead take place through formal professional training, supervised clinical placements and, if she qualified, Nursing and Midwifery Council regulation.

The change in role did not remove the need to examine the historic concerns, but it was relevant to whether the same circumstances were likely to recur and what safeguards would apply to her future professional practice.

Why future safeguarding risk was the key issue

The representations emphasised that DBS barring is protective rather than an additional punishment for past professional failings. The central question was whether the historic events demonstrated a present or future safeguarding risk that required exclusion from regulated activity.

We argued that the original circumstances were unlikely to recur and that the combination of remediation, professional training, supervision and a fundamentally different working environment substantially reduced the risk of repetition.

The case was therefore not advanced on the basis that nothing had gone wrong. It was advanced on the basis that the DBS should assess what had happened accurately, consider the meaningful steps taken since, and decide whether barring remained necessary and proportionate in light of the client’s present circumstances.

The outcome: DBS took no further action

Following consideration of the representations and supporting evidence, the Disclosure and Barring Service took no further action.

Our client was not placed on either the Children’s Barred List or the Adults’ Barred List and was able to continue her nursing studies and clinical training.

For someone seeking to rebuild her professional career within healthcare, the outcome was significant. A barring decision could have prevented her from undertaking regulated activity and jeopardised the professional direction she had worked to establish.

What this case shows

DBS cases involving care professionals may turn on much more than the original incident or regulatory concern. Effective representations can test factual inaccuracies, acknowledge genuine failings, demonstrate remediation and explain why historic practice concerns do not necessarily amount to an ongoing safeguarding risk.

This case also demonstrates the value of showing change through objective evidence. Training, professional supervision, changed working circumstances and a clear understanding of previous failings can all be relevant to the DBS assessment of future risk and proportionality.

Comment from Jared McNally

“This case was not about pretending that nothing had gone wrong. Our client accepted that mistakes had been made, but important parts of the factual picture required correction. We then demonstrated the substantial work she had undertaken since, including training, remediation and her move into a supervised professional environment. The key question was whether she presented a future safeguarding risk. The DBS ultimately took no further action.”

Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co

Specialist DBS barring solicitors

Clifford Johnston & Co represents care professionals, nurses, healthcare workers and others facing DBS barring proceedings. We advise on minded-to-bar and intended-to-bar letters and prepare detailed representations addressing factual findings, safeguarding concerns, remediation, insight, future risk and proportionality.

If you have received a DBS minded-to-bar letter and your ability to work in care, nursing or another regulated profession is at risk, our DBS Solicitors can review the evidence and advise on the representations that should be made before the DBS reaches its final decision.