Care Standards Tribunal, 2019-11-10 (ASC Healthcare Limited v Care Quality Commission)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0681 (HESC) |
| Date | 10 November 2019 |
| Registration Number | 2019/3774/EA-MoU |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2019] UKFTT 0681 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008
Heard on 2nd September at Manchester Employment Tribunal & 28th and 29th
October at Tameside Magistrates Court in Ashton-under-Lyne
[2019] 3774.EA-MoU
BEFORE
Mr G K Sinclair (Tribunal Judge)
Ms D Rabbetts (Specialist Member)
Ms M Tynan (Specialist Member)
BETWEEN:
ASC Healthcare Limited Appellant
v
Care Quality Commission Respondent
DECISION WITH REASONS
Before the Tribunal sitting at Tameside Magistrates Court on 28th & 29th October
2019
Representation
For the Appellant: David Pojour (Counsel)
For the Respondent : Rachel Birks (Solicitor, Ward Hadaway)
Preamble
1. This is a case which, in the tribunal’s view, the CQC has done more to lose than
the Appellant (save for its substantial financial input into improving the fabric
and furniture) has done to win. The entrenched positions taken by certain
witnesses and a reluctance to concede any point were profoundly unhelpful.
2. As Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust had committed to ending its role as
registered service provider at the Breightmet Centre on Tuesday 5th November
2019 the tribunal decided, pursuant to rule 30(2) of the Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008, that as the
parties needed to be able to make essential arrangements for future provision
2
the tribunal should deliver its decision as soon as possible, with reasons to
follow as soon as practicable thereafter.
3. The tribunal met by telephone conference call to consider its decision during
the evening of Wednesday 30th October 2019 and the initial draft of the decision
was produced on the following day.
4. The tribunal’s decision issued on Friday 1st November 2019 was to allow both
appeals, direct that the conditions imposed by the two Notices of Decision
should cease to have effect, and to impose fresh conditions governing the
Appellant’s provision of the service in the immediate future. Those new
conditions are, for convenience, annexed to these reasons.
The appeals
5. The Appellant currently has two registered locations :
a. Maryfield Court, Nettleford Road, Whalley Range, Manchester M16 8NJ,
and
b. The Breightmet Centre for Autism, Milnthorpe Road, Bolton BL2 6PD.
It is a condition of its registration that regulated activity is restricted to those
locations.
6. These appeals concern the second location only. The Centre is an independent
hospital providing in-patient services for those with learning disabilities and
severe autism.
7. The Appellant is appealing against :
a. a Notice of Decision dated 3rd July 2019, served under section 31 of the
Health and Social Care Act 2008, to impose nine additional conditions
on its registration
b. a second Notice of Decision dated 16th July 2019 to vary the scope of
registration by varying the condition setting out the locations from which
the Appellant may carry out the regulated activity by removing the
Breightmet Centre for Autism as a location from which that activity may
be provided.
8. The tribunal ordered that both appeals be heard together and, as the
Memorandum of Understanding applied, they were listed for urgent hearing
(with a time estimate of one day) at Manchester on Monday 2nd September
2019. The hearing that day was delayed by applications by the Appellant to
debar the Respondent from participating in the appeals under rule 8(4), on the
basis that there was no prospect of the CQC’s case succeeding, and by both
parties to adduce further evidence. The tribunal considered the Appellant’s
application under rule 8, ruling that :
...while it may have formed some preliminary views concerning the
Respondent’s case, the tribunal cannot say that the Respondent has no
reasonable prospect of succeeding at trial. The application under rule 8
is therefore dismissed.
9. For want of time the appeals were adjourned to the first available date, this time
with a time estimate of two days. The earliest convenient dates were 28th and
29th October, one week before the revised date for Mersey Care to withdraw
To continue reading
Request your trial