Care Standards Tribunal, 2020-06-19 (Angel Solutions (UK) Limited v Care Quality Commission)

JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
Registration Number2019/3841/EA
Date19 June 2020
CourtCare Standards Tribunal
[2020] UKFTT 0234 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008
Appeal No [2019] 3841.EA (VKinly)
Hearing held via Video link on 11,12,13,14 and 15 May 2020
Panel Deliberation on 26 May 2020
BEFORE
Monica Daley (Tribunal Judge)
Ms Libhin Bromley (Specialist Member)
Ms Caroline Joffe (Specialist Member)
BETWEEN:
Angel Solutions (UK) Limited
Appellant
-v-
Care Quality Commission
Respondent
DECISION
The Application
1. This appeal is against the Respondent’s Notice of Decision(“NOD”) dated 2
August 2019 ( made on 3.9.2019) which adopted the Respondent’s Notice
of Proposal dated 23 May 2019 to vary a condition of the Appellant’s
registration, as a provider of personal care, from the registered address at
Unit 125, Challenge House, 616 Mitcham Road, Croydon Surrey, CR0
3AA. The effect of the NOD is that the Appellant would be prevented from
providing services from that location.
2. The Appellant provides domiciliary personal care to people in their own
home. This care was given to older and younger adults with physical
disabilities, people with mental health needs and children. At the time of the
notice the Appellant had eight service users.
3. On the 23 May 2019 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) served a Notice
2
of Proposal to vary the condition for the regulated activity(s) Personal care.
The Appellant made written representations which were received on 22
June 2019. The NOD, which referenced the representations decided to
adopt the CQC’s proposal, set out in the Notice of Proposal.
4. The NOD stated that in reaching its decision it had considered the following
evidence:
a. The Notice of Proposal dated 23 May 2019 and appended evidence
b. Representations received by the Commission on 22 June 2019
c. CQC inspection report published 21 August 2019
d. Factual accuracy Log dated 13 August 2019
e. CQC inspection reports March 2016, March 2018 and April 2019.
5. The NOD stated that-: “The Commission carried out a comprehensive
inspection at your service on 7th and 13 March 2019. You were found to be
in breach of three regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
Namely, Regulation 19 (1) (2) Fit and proper persons employed, Regulation
12 (1) Safe Care and Treatment and Regulation 17(1) Good Governance.
The body of your representations primarily agreed with the findings cited in
the proposal. However, some aspects of the proposal have been disputed.
Your representations did not demonstrate that sufficient improvements
have been made to address the concerns identified by the Commission.
Furthermore, the Commission found on the most recent inspection of 15th
July 2019 that some of the improvements you referred to had not
materialised in practice.”
6. The Regulations that the Appellant was said to have breached were:
a. Regulation 19(1) and (2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008
(Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 Fit and Proper Persons
Employed.
b. Regulation 12(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated
Activities) Regulation 2014 Safe Care and Treatment
c. Regulation 18(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated
Activities) Regulation 2014 Staffing
d. Regulation 17(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated
Activities) Regulation 2014 Good Governance
7. In the penultimate paragraph on the letter, the NOD stated-: “There
remains convincing evidence at this date that the reasons given within the
Notice of Proposal remain valid. That is the above cited regulated activity is
being, or has at any time been carried on otherwise than in accordance
with the relevant requirements. The Commission’s proposed condition is
therefore reasonable in the light of these findings.”
8. The NOD concluded that the issue of the Notice of Proposal was
“appropriate and proportionate” and the decision was to adopt the CQC’s
Notice of Proposal.
[2020] UKFTT 0234 (HESC)
3
The Parties
9. The parties to this appeal are Angel Solutions (UK) Ltd, the Appellant.
Angel Solutions (UK) Ltd is a company offering domiciliary care, from two
locations Mitcham road, which is the setting which is the subject of the
appeal, and a setting in Southend. The nominated individual is Ms Blessing
Jakpor, who is also the director of the company. The Registered Manager
for the setting in issue is Raymond Akabi-Davis.
10. The Respondent is the CQC), the independent regulator of all health and
social care services in England. Under section 3 of the Health and Social
Care Act 2008 (HSCA 2008) the Respondent’s objectives are to protect
and promote the health safety and welfare of people who use health and
social care services. Under Regulation 8 of the Health and Social Care Act
2018 (Regulated Activities Regulation the respondent is under a statutory
duty to ensure that the provider complies with the fundamental standards of
care (The Standards).
Reporting Restrictions
11. There shall be a Restricted Reporting Order under Rule 14(1) (b) of the
Tribunal Procedure Rules (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008 (the 2008 Rules) prohibiting the publication (including
by electronic means) in a written publication available to the public, or the
inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in England and Wales, of
any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify any service user
or their family member mentioned in the appeal.
Attendance
12. In attendance on behalf of the Appellant Angel Solutions Ltd (UK) were
Counsel Ms. Wright, Ms. Blessing Jakpor the Nominated individual, and Mr.
Raymond Akabi- Davis on all of the days of the hearing and Ms. Triumph
Efe-Ogidi on Thursday 14 May and Friday 15 May and Mr. Nelson Kasozi
on Friday 15 May 2020.
13. And Mr. Greany Counsel for the CQC, Mr. Paul Grant Lead Inspector, Mrs.
Alison Murray Head of inspections, Observers: Georgia Deacon Paralegal
CQC (Day 1), Helen Wells Inspection Manager Sabrine Radi Legal Admin
(days 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Late Evidence
14. Prior to the start of the hearing, Solicitors for the CQC made an application,
dated 6 May 2020 for additional evidence to be admitted in the form of a
second supplementary statement from Paul Grant, the statement dated 5
May 2020, together with exhibits numbered C,860 to C886.
15. The Tribunal also received an Application dated 7 May 2020 from the
Appellant’s legal representatives seeking an order for Ms Triumph Efe-

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT