Care Standards Tribunal, 2020-04-20 (SB v Ofsted)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Date | 20 April 2020 |
| Registration Number | 2019/3679/EY |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2020] UKFTT 0171 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008
[2019] 3679.EY
Hearing on 09 – 13 March 2020 at Northampton SSCS
Panel deliberation hearing on 16 March 2020
BEFORE
Mr J. McCarthy (Tribunal Judge)
Ms P. McLoughlin (Specialist Member)
Ms H. Reid (Specialist Member)
BETWEEN:
SB Appellant
-v-
OFSTED Respondent
DECISION
The Appeal
1. The appellant appeals against Ofsted’s decision dated 28 March 2019
cancelling her registration as a childminder on the Early Years Register and
both parts of the Childcare Register under section 68 of the Childcare Act 2006.
The appeal is brought under section 74(1) of the same Act.
The venue
2. Before we began to hear the appeal, we consulted with both representatives
about the hearing venue, which was an informal hearing room. The efforts
made by HMCTS in the previous week to secure a more suitable hearing room
had not borne fruit.
3. Although we had tried to arrange the room to accommodate all parties in a
layout as in a formal hearing room, we wanted to check that the representatives
[2020] UKFTT 0171 (HESC)
2
would not be disadvantaged when presenting their cases. Both representatives
agreed that the venue was not suitable but were confident they could present
their cases without difficulty even in the unusual environment.
4. We are grateful for their cooperation because the alternative would be to
adjourn to find a more suitable venue, which would result in delay to an appeal
that has already been delayed.
Restricted reporting order
5. The Tribunal has made a restricted reporting order under rule 14(1)(a) and (b)
of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health Education and Social
Care Chamber) Rules 2008, prohibiting the disclosure or publication (even by
electronic means) of any document or matter likely to lead members of the
public to identify any person who at the time of the events in question was
under 18, or may lead to the identification of any child or their family mentioned
in this appeal.
6. We anonymise the appellant, her witnesses and the school witnesses called by
Ofsted, to reduce the risk of any child being identified. We consider these
directions to be proportionate to prevent harm to a child and to protect their
private life.
Attendance
7. Ms Jennifer Agyekum, Counsel, represented the appellant. In addition to the
appellant, her witnesses were SC and SF.
8. Ms Juliet Smith, Solicitor, represented the respondent. Her witnesses were
CM, CT, TK, LC, TB, JS, RS, as well as Ms Sian Extence and Ms Kathryn Bell,
both from Ofsted.
9. All witnesses gave their evidence on oath.
Evidence
10. The documentary evidence, including skeleton arguments and a Scott
Schedule, was provided in a consolidated bundle of 895 pages, divided into ten
sections, A to J, each individually numbered. There was no late evidence.
Background
11. The appellant has been a registered childminder since 1998 and operates from
her home address. Her provision has been inspected on four occasions since
she was registered. In 2005, she was graded as being satisfactory. In 2008,
she was graded as being good. In 2015, she was graded as requiring
improvement. The following year, she was graded as good.
12. On Monday 3 December 2018, Ofsted received concerns that SB had been
witnessed inappropriately and roughly handling a child in her care on Friday 30
November 2018. The incident was alleged to have occurred at a school from
To continue reading
Request your trial