Care Standards Tribunal, 2019-12-18 (K M T v Ofsted)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0745 (HESC) |
| Registration Number | 2019/3672/EY |
| Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2019] UKFTT 0745 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and
Social Care) Rules 2008
[2019] 3672.EY
Heard on 2nd to 4th December at Stafford Crown Court with a deliberation
hearing on 13th December
BEFORE
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER LIMB
SPECIALIST MEMBER – BRIDGET GRAHAM
SPECIALIST MEMBER – MAXINE HARRIS
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL
BETWEEN:
K M T Appellant
-v-
OFSTED Respondent
DECISION
Representation - Mrs J Smith for the Appellant and Mrs T in person
Hearing – written evidence in bundle and oral evidence from
Mrs Lorraine Lawton (“LL") and Mrs Johanna Holt (“JH”) (Ofsted EYRIs),
PCSOs Paskin and Miller
Mrs K T, Mr P T, Mr CT, Mrs C L, and Mrs S N
The hearing was in public
Reporting Order
1 Pursuant to our powers under rule 14(1) we prohibit the publication
(including by electronic means) of any document or matter to any
non-party which includes the name of any person who at the time of
the events in question was under 18 or may lead to identification of
any child or its family mentioned in this appeal. We anonymise the
names of both the Appellant and her witnesses in this decision as
otherwise children might be identified. We consider such direction is
proportionate to prevent harm to a minor.
[2019] UKFTT 0745 (HESC)
2
Introduction and Background
2 KT has been a registered childcare provider since 2006.
Inspections in May 2007, December 2008, November 2012 and
October 2016 graded her as “good”. Although there was limited
reference by Ofsted to events before 2017, the focus of the hearing
and of this decision relates to events in and since 2017.
3 There is a schedule of issues completed by both parties (part F of
the bundle). In relation both to that schedule and more generally we
bear in mind that KT has at all times been unrepresented and we
consider her insertions in the schedule in the context of her oral
evidence.
4 We were assisted by the written skeleton argument of Mrs Smith,
which sets out an overview of the legal and regulatory position as
well as summarising the evidence and allegations relied upon.
5 On the first morning of the hearing the parties agreed and the
tribunal approved the introduction of further evidence as follows :
the evidence attached to the Appellant’s application dated 28
November 2018 (paginated as I19-41), the statement of CT
intended to be attached but not in fact attached to that application
(paginated as I 42), oral evidence from PCSOs Paskin and Miller
with the statements at H109-11 standing as their witness
statements, and a third statement from JH (paginated as H339
onwards).
6 As more fully set out in the skeleton argument and in the schedule,
the essence of the case put forward by Ofsted is that KT is no
longer a “suitable” person to be registered because of the presence
in the household of persons involved with illegal drugs, because
she has not notified Ofsted of significant events and/or not provided
full or accurate information, and because she has demonstrated a
lack of honesty in her dealings with Ofsted and a lack of ability to
act objectively in relation to matters which may have potential
impact upon the safety of children being minded. It is also alleged
that failings in notification and ensuring the suitability of members of
the household amount to breaches of regulations. It is alleged that
there was also a breach of regulations in failing to make
childminding records available to Ofsted when requested, although
it was accepted that this was a single occasion and related to only a
single week and (in effect) accepted that the record may well have
been misplaced innocently in the course of administration by the
Appellant. Although not within the original allegations at the time of
notice of cancellation, Ofsted also allege that the medical records
now disclosed give grounds for alleging that the Appellant is not a
suitable person.
To continue reading
Request your trial