Care Standards Tribunal, 2020-01-22 (ADR CARE HOMES (ST NICHOLAS CARE HOME) v CARE QUALITY COMMISSION)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKFTT 0011 (HESC) |
| Date | 22 January 2020 |
| Registration Number | 2019/3676/EA |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2020] UKFTT 0011 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care)
Rules 2008
[2019] 3676.EA
Hearing on 09-13 December 2019 at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court
Panel deliberation hearing on 03 January 2020
BEFORE
Mr N. Sleight (Tribunal Judge)
Ms C. Joffe (Specialist Member)
Ms J. Everitt (Specialist Member)
BETWEEN:
ADR CARE HOMES (ST NICHOLAS CARE HOME)
Appellant
-v-
CARE QUALITY COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
The Appeal
1. Mr and Mrs Rudd are the directors of ADR Care Homes [“the Appellants”]. Within this
company Mr Rudd has been a registered provider with the Care Quality Commission [“the
Respondents”] for 16 years. St Nicholas Care Home, Sheringham, is the registered home
subject to this appeal [“the home”]. Mr Rudd became the registered provider for St
Nicholas on the 25.10.10. He was also the nominated individual until 17.02.19.
2. On the 18.01.19 the Respondents wrote to the Appellant with a Notice of Proposal
[“NOP”]. The registration in 2010 for this home was in respect of the regulated activity of
accommodation for people requiring nursing or personal care. Pursuant to S12(5)(a) of
the Health and Social Care Act 2008 [“HSCA 2008”] the NOP sought to vary condition
two, namely that the Appellants be no longer authorised to carry on the regulated activity
of providing accommodation for people requiring nursing or personal care from this home.
[2020] UKFTT 0011 (HESC)
2
3. The Appellant supplied written representations on the 15.02.19. On the 26.03.19 the
Respondents issues a Notice of Decision [“NOD”] pursuant to S28(3) of the 2008 Act.
The Appellant lodged an appeal in respect of this NOD on the 23.04.19.
Representation
4. The Appellants were represented by Mr David Hercock, Counsel.
The Respondents were represented by Ms Laura Bayley, Counsel.
5. The Tribunal was provided with two full lever arch files prior to the hearing. By the end
of the hearing, in light of further evidence admitted by agreement, we had the best part of
a third lever arch file of material. The Tribunal had been provided with the relevant
statutory and regulatory provisions/guidelines relating to this area of law.
6. At the close of business the week before the appeal began, a composite Scott
Schedule had been provided. It contained a number of allegations by the Respondents,
attempting to demonstrate either breaches of specified regulations (dating from Nov 18,
May 19 to Nov 19) within the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulation
2014 [“the regulations”] or evidence of a pattern of an ongoing failure within the home to
comply with those regulations.
7. On the penultimate day of the appeal both Counsel were invited to prepare brief written
submissions on the main issues. Both Counsel spoke to those submissions on the final
day. The Tribunal found the combination of these submissions together with their skeleton
arguments helpful. The issues in this appeal include consideration of the more detailed
written evidence provided by both parties, as well as the oral evidence which had been
subjected to cross examination, over the course of five days. We have considered all of
the evidence and submissions before us. If we do not refer to any particular aspect of the
evidence/submissions it should not be assumed that we have not taken this into account.
Restricted Reporting Order
8. The Tribunal made a restricted reporting order under Rule14(1)(a) and (b) of the
Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)
Rules 2008 [“the 2008 rules”], prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any documents
or matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the users of the service in this
case so as to protect their private lives.
Late Evidence
9. In the weeks leading up to the appeal hearing, both the Appellant and Respondent
made a number of written applications for the admission of late evidence. In respect of all
matters, save for reference to paragraph 10 below, all additional evidence was admitted
as it was agreed and dealt with at telephone case management hearings. On the morning
To continue reading
Request your trial