Care Standards Tribunal, 2020-04-20 (Bleak House Limited v CQC)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Date | 20 April 2020 |
| Registration Number | 2019/3765/EA |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2020] UKFTT 0172 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008
Heard on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 March 2020 at Bridlington Magistrates Court
[2019] 3765.EA
BEFORE
Mr Clive Dow (Tribunal Judge)
Ms Patricia McLoughlin (Specialist Member)
Mr John Hutchinson (Specialist Member)
Bleak House Limited Appellant
V
Care Quality Commission Respondent
DECISION AND REASONS
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Mark Ruffell, Counsel, instructed by Ridouts PLC
Respondent: Ms Anna Wilkinson, Counsel, instructed by CQC Legal Services
The Appeal
1. This is an appeal by Bleak House Limited (Bleak House) brought under Section
32 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) against the decision of the
Care Quality Commission (CQC), made on 21 June 2019.
2. The Appellant is registered as a provider of regulated activities at Bleak House,
High Street, Patrington, Humberside, HU12 0RE for the accommodation of
persons who require nursing or personal care. The CQC refused Bleak House’s
application to vary a condition of their existing registration so as to permit a
further five places at Bleak House, so increasing the maximum number of
service users from 19 to 24.
Restricted Reporting Order
[2020] UKFTT 0172 (HESC)
2
3. The Tribunal makes a restricted reporting order under Rule 14(1)(a) and (b) of
the 2008 Rules, prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any documents or
matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the service users in this
case, so as to protect confidentiality and privacy.
4. Consistent with this direction, and meaning no disrespect to them, this decision
avoids using the names of service users at Bleak House.
Background
5. Bleak House is a large building in the centre of the village of Patrington.
Formerly a large private home, Bleak House was opened by Mrs Sheila Turley
as a home of adults with learning disabilities in 1985, following the provisions of
the Care in the Community Act. Mrs Turley passed away in 2012. Bleak House’s
directors now include Mrs Turley’s son, Mr Steven Turley and daughter Mrs
Susan Harris. Ms Sara Turley, Mrs Turley’s granddaughter, is the manager of
Bleak House.
6. In late 2014 the directors applied for outline planning permission to build a
substantial extension to Bleak House, including a further 10 rooms with en-suite
shower facilities, some adapted with hoists and other equipment for the most
physically disabled service users, and additional bathroom facilities also
adapted for use by physically disabled service users. Outline planning
permission was subsequently granted in October 2015. Detailed building
regulation plans were drawn up in December 2016. Building work commenced
in August 2017.
7. Mr Turley and Mrs Harris are also the directors of another, smaller home for
adults with learning disabilities on a separate self-contained site next door to
Bleak House. Mr Turley is the manager of that home, which has capacity for 8
service users.
The Chronology
8. Bleak House Ltd was registered as a Provider with the CQC for the regulated
activity of ‘accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care’
from Bleak House, on 1 October 2010. The registration was granted subject to
conditions stating that: (i) the Registered Provider… may accommodate a
maximum of 19 service users at Bleak House; and (ii) the Registered Provider
must not provide nursing care under “accommodation for persons who require
nursing or personal care” at Bleak House.
9. The Appellant applied to vary a condition of registration relating to Bleak House
on 21 May 2018. The Appellant sought to vary the first condition of its
registration to read: “The Registered Provider may accommodate a maximum
of 24 service users at Bleak House”.
10. On 19 July 2018 the Respondent’s inspector, Anita Adams, conducted a site
visit to Bleak House in the company of Ms Alison Westwood, the Respondent’s
[2020] UKFTT 0172 (HESC)
3
registration manager.
11. On 1 November 2018 the Respondent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the
Appellant’s application. Representations were invited and submitted by the
Appellant on 29 November 2018. The representations were considered by
Clare Robbie, the Respondent’s head of representations. On 9 January 2019
she sent a letter to the Appellants entitled “Letter to confirm t he Commission
will not be adopting the proposal to refuse your application to vary conditions of
registration as a service provider in respect of a regulated activity”. The letter
said that the matter had now been passed back to the registration team for
further investigation and that the decision to refer it back to them did not pre-
determine the outcome of any further assessment.
12. By letter dated 17 April 2019 the Respondent issued a further Notice of Proposal
to refuse the application.
13. The Appellant submitted representations in response to that Notice of Proposal
on 16 May 2019.
14. The Respondent issued a Notice of Decision on 21 June 2019. The Notice of
Decision adopted the Notice of Proposal to refuse the Appellant’s application to
vary the condition of their registration.
The Notice of Proposal
15. In her letter of 17 April 2019, Ms Westwood proposed to refuse the application
for reasons including:
- “B1.14. From consideration of the information you have presented in your
application and provided to us to form our assessment, you have failed to
demonstrate that you have had regard to the guidance issued by the
Commission which under Regulation 21 of the Act states providers “must
have regard to”. Our assessment found that the service model you are
proposing does not align with published best practice guidance as outlined
above. You have not provided any compelling reasons why the Commission
should depart from such guidance.
…
- B2.5. We note that the most recent inspection of Bleak House found that
the service was able to deliver person-centred care and was found to be
compliant with Regulation 9. Our assessment has taken into consideration
the potential impact of additional people on the potential future outcomes
for existing and additional service users.
…
- B2.10. The increase of extra people to the home and their associated
health, social care and wellbeing needs would reduce the degree of person-
centred and personalised care that could be provided by the staff team. This
To continue reading
Request your trial