Care Standards Tribunal, 2019-11-08 (GREASBROUGH RESIDENTIAL AND NURSING HOME v CARE QUALITY COMMISSION)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0680 (HESC) |
| Registration Number | 2018/3573/EA |
| Date | 08 November 2019 |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2019] UKFTT 0680 (HESC)
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008
Heard on 24, 25, 26 & 27 September 2019 at the Leeds Magistrates Court
[2018] 3573.EA
BEFORE
Timothy Thorne (Tribunal Judge)
Wendy Stafford (Specialist Member)
Lorna Jacobs (Specialist Member)
BETWEEN
GREASBROUGH RESIDENTIAL AND NURSING HOME (A) Appellant
-v-
CARE QUALITY COMMISSION (R) Respondent
DECISION
The Appeal
1. This is an appeal by A pursuant to section 32 of the Health and Social Care Act
against the decision made by R on 03/12/18, to make an order under Section
17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 cancelling A’s registration
Background
2. A was registered to provide the following regulated activities at the location of
Greasbrough Residential and Nursing Home, Potter Hill, Greasbrough,
Rotherham, South Yorkshire, S61 4NU (“the Home”):
a. Accommodation for Persons who Require Nursing or Personal Care;
b. Diagnostic and Screening Procedures; and
c. Treatment of Disease, Disorder or Injury.
3. A was originally registered with R as a service provider as a partnership between
Dr M H Hussain and Mrs J M Hussain. R inspected A on 5 occasions between
March 2015 and August 2018. The results of those inspections are as follows:
a. In March 2015 A was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and
‘Inadequate’ in the domain of ‘safe’.
[2019] UKFTT 0680 (HESC)
b. In May 2016 improvements were found and it was rated overall as ‘Good’
in all domains.
c. In March 2017 A was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and
‘Good’ only in the domain of ‘caring’.
d. In May and June 2018 several breaches of the Health and Social Care
Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were identified. The
home was rated as ‘Inadequate’ overall and as a result was placed into
Special Measures. The Local Authority, Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council (RMBC) provided the home with support.
e. On 6th August 2018, R carried out a further focussed inspection and
found breaches still occurring, in addition to further, new breaches.
4. A Notice of Proposal (‘NOP’) had been issued by R on 11/07/18 which proposed
to cancel A’s registration. In response, A submitted written representations
against that NOP on 10/08/18.
5. After considering the relevant evidence (including inspection reports, factual
accuracy summaries in response to the reports and written representations from
A) on 23/09/18, R issued a Notice of Decision (‘NOD’) to adopt the proposal in
the NOP and cancel A’s registration. The NOD was originally sent to the wrong
address, therefore R re-submitted the NOD to A on 3/12/18. A the submitted an
appeal on 21/12/18 and R submitted its response on 26/01/19.
Further Background
6. A was also registered with Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC)
from around 1999 and had a contract with them to provide personal and
residential care to older people. RMBC was alerted to several safeguarding and
contractual concerns and as a result it also inspected A and found several
breaches of contractual standards. As a result, A was placed into the
aforementioned 6-week Special Measures Improvement Plan and monitored by
the RMBC Compliance Team. The necessary improvements were not achieved
and RMBC issued a Notice of Termination on 10/08/18 and the RMBC residents
were removed from the home over time.
7. The last resident moved out on 28/09/18 and A went into administration on
16/10/18. The home was sold in April 2019 and is no longer owned by A.
8. In summary R contends that the decision to cancel A’s registration was made in
accordance with the provisions of section 17 HSCA and pursuant to the CQC
Enforcement Policy Decision Tree and was reasonable, appropriate and
proportionate.
The Appellant’s Case
9. This was set out in a skeleton argument served on behalf of A which was
undated and submitted at the beginning of the hearing. The panel rejected an
application made by R to exclude this document as it was served late. The panel
took the view that as it was helpful to the Tribunal it should be admitted. The
document can be summarised as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial