When must an organisation make a DBS barring referral?

An allegation against a worker in regulated activity can trigger several urgent decisions. The organisation may need to protect a child or adult, alert the police or local safeguarding route, suspend or move the worker, investigate the facts, manage a disciplinary process and consider a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service. Those actions are related, but one does not automatically complete another. A report to the police does not remove a separate duty to refer to DBS when the DBS conditions are met. Equally, every allegation does not instantly become a legal DBS referral.

The first task is to keep people safe and follow the organisation's safeguarding process. The referral question then needs its own documented assessment. The DBS legal-duty guidance, updated in September 2026, describes the core conditions. The DBS referral guidance explains who can refer, who has a duty, what information to provide and how to submit it. The statutory duties for regulated activity providers and personnel suppliers are in sections 35 and 36 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. A legal or safeguarding specialist should review a difficult case against the current amended law, rather than treating this article as a decision engine.

Who may have a legal duty?

DBS guidance identifies regulated activity providers and personnel suppliers as groups that can have a legal duty to refer when the conditions are met. A regulated activity provider is an organisation responsible for work that is legally defined as regulated activity with children or adults. A personnel supplier can include an employment agency, an employment business or, in some circumstances, an educational institution supplying a person to a provider. The label on the contract is less useful than the legal relationship and the work actually arranged.

This matters when a worker is supplied through an agency. The site where the person works may hold evidence about an incident, while the agency holds employment records and may remove the person from future placements. Both need a process to share relevant facts lawfully and determine their respective duties. Routine placement assurance is distinct from a suspected harm case. The latter needs a safeguarding response and may create a DBS referral obligation for one or more organisations.

The DBS guidance also distinguishes people who can send information on safeguarding grounds from those under a legal duty. A parent or member of the public does not acquire the employer's statutory referral duty merely because they have a concern. They should use the police, social services or employer route as appropriate to the situation. An organisation that does not meet the statutory duty conditions may still be able to make a safeguarding referral. It should seek advice about that power and the information to share.

The two conditions at the centre of the duty

The DBS referral guidance presents two conditions for regulated activity providers and personnel suppliers. First, the organisation withdraws permission for the person to engage in regulated activity, or moves them to other work. This can include a situation where it would have done so but the person resigned, retired, was redeployed or otherwise left. Second, the organisation considers that the person engaged in relevant conduct, satisfies the harm test or received a caution or conviction for a relevant offence covered by the guidance. The current law and full DBS guidance must be checked for the precise case.

Those conditions ask two different questions. What happened to the person's permission to do regulated activity? What evidence supports the concern about harm, risk or a relevant offence? A manager may be confident about one answer and uncertain about the other. A completed record should show both, rather than saying only that the individual was dismissed for misconduct. The reason for dismissal may be unrelated to safeguarding. Conversely, a resignation does not automatically end the referral analysis if the organisation would have removed the person from regulated activity on the established facts.

The definition of regulated activity matters at this stage. Working in a school, care service or charity does not by itself answer it. The person's actual work with children or adults should be tested against the relevant legal definition. Use the current DBS eligibility guidance to distinguish child and adult regulated activity. The September 2026 change to the child supervision exemption may affect some current child-facing roles, so old role assessments should not be copied without review.

Relevant conduct, harm and the harm test

DBS guidance explains relevant conduct as an action or failure to act that harmed or put a child or adult at risk of harm. The harm test can be relevant where there is credible evidence of a risk even without an incident that fits the relevant-conduct description. The DBS page on making referrals gives detailed descriptions and examples for children and adults, along with relevant offences. Those tests should be read carefully for the facts at hand.

An internal allegation is not the same as a finding that a statutory condition is met. The employer should investigate, preserve evidence and record what it has concluded. Nor should the organisation wait for a criminal conviction in every case. The DBS referral framework can operate on safeguarding evidence gathered through an employer process. The DBS, not the employer, decides whether to place a person on a barred list.

Use restrained language in case records. “We have concluded that the worker did X on the evidence listed” is different from “the worker is barred”. An employer should not present an unproven allegation as a criminal conviction or publish it as fact beyond the authorised process. The referral may contain sensitive information about the worker, witnesses and a child or adult affected. Access and sharing should be controlled by the safeguarding and data-protection leads.

What if the person resigns before the investigation finishes?

A resignation can make the case harder to investigate, but it is not a reason to close the safeguarding file. DBS guidance says organisations should complete investigations and disciplinary processes even when the person has left, and that the duty can apply where the organisation would have removed the person from regulated activity had they remained. Record what action the organisation would have taken and why. Continue to gather the evidence available, including accounts from relevant witnesses and records of the person's duties.

The timing of a resignation can be significant but should not be treated as proof of the alleged conduct. Preserve the distinction between facts, inference and unanswered questions. If another organisation may be using the person in regulated activity, seek urgent specialist advice about lawful information sharing and immediate safeguarding steps. Do not rely on a future DBS certificate to alert every employer to a current allegation.

Retirement, redundancy and redeployment also need careful treatment. The question is whether permission to carry out regulated activity was withdrawn, or would have been withdrawn, for the relevant safeguarding reason, alongside the second condition. A redeployment for ordinary operational reasons is not the same decision. The record should tie the action to the established concern, rather than treating any departure as a referral trigger.

Should a referral be made at the first allegation or during suspension?

The DBS legal-duty guidance says organisations normally need to investigate and gather enough evidence to establish whether the conditions are met. It says a referral may not yet be necessary during suspension pending investigation, and points organisations to the DBS Regional Outreach Team for advice. That is about the DBS referral decision. It does not tell a service to delay immediate protection, a police report or any other safeguarding notification required by its sector.

Set a review point early in the investigation. Ask who will reassess the DBS question when evidence arrives or the employment decision changes. If the organisation concludes that the duty conditions are met, do not allow the case to sit indefinitely because another process is underway. DBS guidance says a referral should still be made even if considerable time has passed, and a police, regulator or local-authority referral does not replace it.

A rigid “refer on day one” policy can produce incomplete submissions and confuse allegation with conclusion. A rigid “wait for a conviction” policy can miss a duty. The workable approach is to protect people immediately, investigate promptly, document the two-condition assessment and use specialist advice when timing or evidence is uncertain.

How the referral fits with other reporting routes

The DBS referral is about whether the service should consider barring someone from regulated activity. A police report addresses possible crime. A local safeguarding referral addresses protection and multi-agency action. A professional-regulator notification concerns registration and fitness to practise. A sector regulator may have its own notification requirements. These purposes overlap but are not interchangeable.

The DBS guidance expressly says the legal duty to refer can apply even if an allegation has already gone to the police, a local-authority safeguarding team or a professional regulator. Make a simple reporting map for the case that names each possible route, the decision maker, deadline where applicable and confirmation of submission. Do not use “reported externally” as a single checkbox that hides whether the DBS question was considered.

For schools, care providers, health services and charities, sector guidance may specify additional procedures. This page cannot replace those instructions. A school should follow current English safeguarding guidance and consult its designated lead. A care provider should use its regulator and local safeguarding arrangements. A personnel supplier should coordinate with the receiving organisation, but each entity must assess its own legal position. The DBS guidance is the common starting point for the barring referral itself.

What evidence should accompany a referral?

DBS asks for enough information to understand the concern and assess whether barring should be considered. Its 2026 guidance lists examples such as a job description, investigation and disciplinary records, interview notes, a chronology, details of harm or risk, training and supervision records, earlier concerns and contact details for other organisations involved. The list is not an invitation to upload an entire personnel file without review. Send relevant, legible evidence and explain abbreviations.

Build a chronology that separates dates of alleged events from dates when the organisation learned about them. Identify who made each decision and what evidence they had at that point. Include the person's role and why it was regulated activity. Show when permission was withdrawn or would have been withdrawn, and the evidence for relevant conduct, the harm test or offence category. If a conclusion is disputed, record that fairly. A high-quality referral allows DBS to see the organisation's reasoning, not only the final employment outcome.

The referral information may be disclosed by DBS to the person referred or other parties during its process. The DBS legal-duty leaflet advises careful redaction that leaves the evidence understandable. Do not promise witnesses absolute secrecy that the process cannot guarantee. Ask the safeguarding and legal leads how to handle identifying details and disclose only through authorised channels.

Using the current submission route

The DBS making-referrals page directs organisations to the online Barring Referral Service. It describes an alternative contact route where online submission cannot be used. Follow that live page rather than copying a form address or a processing-time promise into a static policy. The service can change its sign-in process, operating hours and document requirements.

Assign one person to own the submission and another to review its completeness if the case is complex. Retain a secure record of what was sent, when and by whom, including later information requested by DBS. If DBS asks for prescribed information, the organisation may have a separate legal duty to provide it. The 2026 guidance warns that this duty may exist whether or not the organisation itself made a referral. Specialist review is appropriate where a request involves sensitive records or another organisation's evidence.

After submission, continue internal safeguarding and employment processes. A DBS referral is not itself a barring decision. The organisation should not announce a barring outcome it has not received. It should also not assume that DBS will handle every immediate local safeguarding task. Maintain contact with the relevant agencies under the established process.

A worked case: agency worker removed from a placement

An agency supplies a worker for regulated activity. The receiving provider reports an allegation of harm and removes the person from the placement. The agency suspends further assignments while facts are gathered. The provider has witness statements and incident records; the agency has the worker's assignment history and employment response. Both need to coordinate safeguarding action and lawful information sharing.

The organisations first identify who was responsible for the regulated activity, what work the person actually did and who withdrew or would have withdrawn permission. They investigate the allegation and distinguish evidence from rumour. Each then assesses whether it falls within the provider or personnel-supplier category and whether both referral conditions are satisfied. A report by one organisation does not automatically prove that the other's statutory duty has been discharged. They should agree who will submit what evidence, while each records its own legal decision and obtains advice if responsibilities are contested.

Suppose the worker resigns from the agency before the investigation concludes. The case does not disappear. The organisations continue to establish the facts and record whether the worker would have been removed from regulated activity on the evidence. If the duty conditions are met, a referral can still be required. A simultaneous police or local safeguarding report does not replace the DBS route. If the evidence does not establish the legal duty, the organisations should still consider whether a safeguarding referral is permitted and what other reporting routes apply.

A decision record for the safeguarding file

The record should be concise enough to use, yet specific enough to explain the decision months later.

This is an editorial record structure, not a statutory form. It cannot decide whether a duty applies. The safeguarding lead and legal adviser should adapt it to the case and the organisation's sector. Sensitive information should be stored with access limited to those who need it. Do not place detailed allegations in a general worker profile, shared rota or marketing software merely because it has a document-upload button.

Where Complys fits

Complys does not receive or submit DBS barring referrals, decide whether a legal duty has arisen, investigate allegations, search barred lists or decide whether someone should be barred. Its generic worker-document and reminder functions may help an organisation maintain ordinary review dates and workforce records, subject to a suitable access and retention policy. They are not a specialist safeguarding case-management or referral workflow. The organisation should use its approved safeguarding system and the official DBS service for a live case.

If you are assessing a case now, protect the people involved, follow your sector safeguarding procedure and read the current DBS legal-duty guidance alongside the submission guidance. For the separate question of who can work in regulated activity, use the current DBS eligibility guidance. The DBS employer guidance deals with checks at recruitment; this page deals with a possible referral after a serious safeguarding concern.