Social Care Wales v Kayleigh Williams [2026] UKFTT 01134 (HESC)
First Tier Tribunal Care StandardsThe Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 20082026-01897.ISO-WNeutral Citation Number: [2026] UKFTT 01134 (HESC)Hearing held Remotelyon 04 August 2026
Before
Tribunal Judge C AshbySpecialist Member R GrahamSpecialist Member D StylesSocial Care WalesAppellant-v-Kayleigh WilliamsRespondentDECISION
Between
Social Care WalesClaimantKayleigh WilliamsDefendantDate 2026-08-06
The Application
[1]This was an application by Social Care Wales ("SCW") under section 148 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 for a further extension of an Interim Suspension Order ("ISO") imposed in respect of Ms Kayleigh Williams.[2]The Tribunal heard the application on 04 August 2026. Attendance[3]The Appellant was represented by Mr Delme Griffiths. Fitness to Practise Officer Mr Ieuan Parry attended as a witness for the Appellant.[4]Ms Williams did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal was satisfied that she had been given proper notice of the hearing and determined that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed in her absence. Background[5]Ms Williams is registered with the Appellant as a Domiciliary Care Worker.[6]An Interim Orders Panel imposed an Interim Suspension Order on 29 February 2024. The order has subsequently been reviewed and extended on a number of occasions.[7]The original concerns arose from allegations that Ms Williams had committed burglary and theft involving a vulnerable user of care and support. Although the police subsequently took no further action in relation to those allegations, the Appellant has not yet received the disclosure material it requires in order to complete its own regulatory investigation.[8]Since the imposition of the ISO, further concerns have arisen. These include allegations of threats to kill and assault, in relation to which no further police action was taken, and a subsequent allegation of assault which remains under police investigation. Legal Framework[9]In determining the application, the Tribunal applied section 148 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 and the principles identified in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.[10]The Tribunal reminded itself that it is not its role at this stage to determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against Ms Williams. The issue for the Tribunal is whether continuation of the interim order remains necessary in the interests of public protection, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the registrant.[11]The burden rests upon the Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that a further extension is justified. Evidence[12]The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Ieuan Parry, whose witness statement was before the Tribunal. Mr Parry confirmed that there had been no material developments since the preparation of his statement. He explained that Social Care Wales continued to await both the outcome of the ongoing police investigation into the most recent allegation of assault and disclosure from the police relating to the earlier burglary and theft investigation. He said that the police had indicated that a further update regarding the current investigation might be available within six to eight weeks and that he intended to continue seeking updates.[13]Mr Parry's evidence was that the concerns underpinning the original Interim Suspension Order remained valid. He considered that the allegations were serious in nature, involving both alleged dishonesty towards a vulnerable service user and more recent allegations of violent conduct. In his view, if the Interim Suspension Order were no longer in place, vulnerable individuals could be exposed to a risk of harm. He therefore maintained that continuation of the order remained necessary on public protection and public interest grounds.[14]The Tribunal found Mr Parry to be a straightforward and credible witness. His evidence was measured and he readily accepted the limitations of the information currently available to the Appellant. In particular, that the progress of the regulatory investigation was dependent to a significant extent upon the provision of disclosure by the police and the outcome of ongoing criminal enquiries.[15]The Tribunal attached weight to Mr Parry's evidence concerning the practical difficulties faced by the Appellant in progressing its investigation whilst police enquiries remain unresolved. We also noted his evidence that, should relevant disclosure be received in respect of the original allegations, SCW would commence consideration of those matters immediately rather than await the completion of all investigations before taking any steps. His evidence assisted the Tribunal in understanding both the current status of the investigation and the reasons for the continuing delay. The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons[16]Having considered the documentary evidence, the oral evidence of Mr Parry, and the submissions of Mr Griffiths, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Interim Suspension Order remains necessary.[17]We attached significant weight to the seriousness of the allegations which gave rise to the original interim order. The allegations concern dishonesty and the alleged exploitation of a vulnerable service user, matters which strike at the heart of the standards expected of registered social care workers.[18]We recognised that the police took no further action in relation to the original allegations. However, we accepted SCW's submission that the absence of criminal proceedings does not preclude regulatory investigation of the underlying conduct. We noted that SCW has not yet received the disclosure necessary to complete its own enquiries.[19]We also attached weight to the existence of further allegations since the imposition of the original order, including an allegation of assault which remains the subject of an ongoing police investigation.[20]Having considered the totality of the information before us, we were satisfied that the concerns identified when the ISO was originally imposed have not diminished to such an extent that the order can safely be revoked.We also took into account the Respondent's continued non-engagement with the regulatory process and the absence of any evidence that the risks previously identified by Interim Orders Panels have reduced.[21]We concluded that an Interim Suspension Order remains necessary for the protection of the public. The unresolved nature of the allegations, when viewed alongside the ongoing police investigation, gives rise to continuing concerns regarding risk.[22]We were also satisfied that continuation of the order is otherwise in the public interest. A fully informed member of the public would expect serious allegations involving alleged dishonesty towards a vulnerable service user, together with subsequent allegations of violent behaviour, to be fully investigated before unrestricted practice is permitted. Public confidence in the social care profession and in the regulatory process would be undermined if a registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice whilst those matters remain unresolved.[23]We considered with care whether it would be appropriate to impose a shorter extension. We noted the length of time for which the Interim Suspension Order has already been in force and the prejudice caused to Ms Williams by its continuation. However, the evidence before us demonstrated that the outstanding police investigations and police disclosure process have progressed slowly over a significant period of time. We were satisfied that there was no realistic prospect that all necessary information would be available to the Appellant within a substantially shorter period. In those circumstances, we concluded that a further extension of 12 months was both necessary and proportionate.[24]We acknowledged the prejudice to Ms Williams arising from the continuation of the suspension. However, balancing that prejudice against the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession and regulatory process, we were satisfied that the continuation of the order remained necessary and proportionate. Decision:[25]The Interim Suspension Order in respect of Ms Kayleigh Williams shall be extended for a further period of 12 months, until 28 August 2027.[26]The Tribunal is satisfied that the extension is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. Judge C Ashby First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) 06 August 2026