Care Standards Tribunal, 2025-03-18 (Mitchell's Care Homes Limited v Care Quality Commission)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] UKFTT 00338 (HESC) |
| Date | 18 March 2025 |
| Registration Number | 2023/5166/.EA |
First-tier Tribunal Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social
Care) Rules 2008
NCN: [2025] UKFTT 00338 (HESC)
[2023] 5166.EA
Hybrid Hearing at Royal Courts of Justice
On 21 October to 1st November 2024
Before
Tribunal Judge Iman
Specialist Member Miss R Smith
Specialist Member Mr J Hutchinson
Between: Mitchell's Care Homes Limited Appellant
-v-
Care Quality Commission Respondent
DECISION
The Application
1. The Appellant, a provider of care and support to people living in supported living
settings, appeals against the Respondent’s Notice of Decision (“NoD”) dated 2
October 2023, to cancel the Appellant’s Registration as a Service Provider in respect
of the regulated activity of Personal Care (the “Regulated Activity”) at or from Head
Office, Unit 3 Shawlands Court, Newchapel Road, Lingfield RH7 6BL now Bridgeham
Grange Annex, Broadbridge Lane, Smallfield, Horley, RH6 9RD.
2. It was brought to the Tribunal’s attention that there were two linked appeals; the first
against the Appellant relating to the Regulated Activity Accommodation for persons
who require nursing or personal care under Tribunal reference [2023] 5139.EA and
another against the Registered Manager, Lindsey Goodson, in respect of the
Regulated Activity Personal Care [2023] 5170.EA. The appeal under Tribunal
reference [2023] 5170.EA commenced in July 2024 and had gone part heard until
January 2025. The appeal under [2023] 5139.EA commenced in October 2024 but
was withdrawn part way through proceedings.
3. Mr Ageros KC raised with the Tribunal that one of the Tribunal Members, Miss Smith
had been part of the Tribunal for the withdrawn case. Neither party objected to Miss
Smith hearing this case and the Tribunal also satisfied itself that there was no issue
with Miss Smith taking part in this hearing. Miss Smith is an experienced Tribunal
Member and was confident that she was able to place the other hearing out of her
mind. Further, the previous hearing was not discussed with the Tribunal at any stage.
4. In respect of the part-heard appeal relating to Lindsey Goodson, the Tribunal did
not have any knowledge about that case and did not make any inferences or
conclusions in respect of this. The only fact known to the Tribunal was that there were
linked appeals and what the panel were told about the appeals, namely that Mitchell’s
Care Homes Limited (MCHL) is no longer seeking to maintain the Registration for its
residential care settings. The Tribunal heard that this would free up MCHL personnel
to concentrate fully on its supported living settings which represents the main
component of its regulated activity.
Background
5. Between 14 May to 6 June 2023, the Respondent carried out an inspection at the
Appellant’s Head Office. As part of the inspection, the Respondent visited 11 settings
where the Regulated Activity is carried on by the Appellant.
6. At this inspection the Respondent identified the following breaches which
demonstrated that the Appellant was not meeting the requirements of the Health and
Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (the “2014
Regulations"):
Breach of Regulation 9 (Person Centred Care), Regulation 10 (Dignity and
Respect), Regulation 12 (Safe Care and Treatment), Regulation 13
(Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment), Regulation
18 (Staffing), Regulation 19 (Fit and Proper Person Employed) and
Regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008
(Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
7. On 26 June 2023, the Respondent issued a Notice of Proposal to cancel the
Appellant’s Registration as a service provider in respect of the Regulated Activity at or
from Head Office, Unit 3 Shawlands Court, Newchapel Road, Lingfield RH7 6BL. On
21 July 2023, the Appellant submitted written representations. Following the review of
the written representations, the Respondent was not satisfied that the Appellant had
addressed the breaches as set out in the Notice of Proposal and issued the Notice of
Decision.
8. The Appellant, in its grounds of appeal and further in its witness evidence accepts
some of the allegations made by the Respondent and submits it has made changes
and improvements in appropriate areas. However, it maintains that the Respondent’s
decision to cancel its registration was disproportionate and wrong.
9. The Respondent conducted a further assessment (inspection) of the Appellant
under the single assessment framework in April 2024; and at the request of the
Appellant expanded that focussed assessment to a full inspection, covering all
domains in June 2024. The Respondent has produced further witness statements and
evidence of August 2024.
10. The Respondent maintains that its decision to cancel the Appellant’s registration
as a service provider in respect of the Regulated Activity is reasonable, proportionate,
and justified. The Respondent opposes the appeal in its entirety.
The Hearing
11. The hearing took place over 10 days on from 21st October to 1st November 2024.
The parties and their witnesses attended in person at the Royal Courts of Justice. The
Tribunal met remotely for deliberations on the following dates: 10th & 11th Dec 2024
and 22nd, 23rd & 31st January 2025 following receipt of written submissions from both
parties.
Attendance
12. Natasha Mitchell attended as the Nominated Individual and Lindsey Goodson
attended as Registered Manager. Other witnesses who gave oral evidence were
Charlotte Jones (Chief Operating Officer of BKR Care Consultancy Limited) and
Parent A (parent of a service user); they attended for part of the hearing. On some
days, Bibi Mitchell, Director of the MCHL attended remotely. Her witness statement
was read into the record and she did not provide any oral evidence. They were
represented by Mr Ageros KC.
13. The Respondent was represented by Mr Connor and the following witnesses
attended: Clare Creech (CQC Inspector), Emma Steele (CQC Inspector), Susan
Kavanagh (CQC Inspector), Amy Jupp (CQC Inspector) and Simon Abbott (senior
manager of Learning Disabilities and Autism Team, Surrey County Council).
14. The parties took a pragmatic view and read the following witness statements into
the record: Gail Winnery (CQC Inspector), Charlotte Trenchard (CQC Inspector),
Stacy Newark (CQC Inspector), Niamh Coyne (CQC Inspector), Charlotte Condon
(CQC Inspector), Kelly White (CQC Operations Manager). It was made clear to the
Tribunal that this evidence was not accepted but that the cross examination would be
focused with the main inspection witnesses to ensure the hearing completed in time.
The Tribunal have therefore read the witnesses statements.
The parties’ position
15. The Appellant submits that the Respondent’s decision to cancel Mitchell’s Care
Home Limited (MCHL) registration in regards to the supported living services was
disproportionate and wrong, and that the imposition of lesser conditions would have
been both proportionate and sufficient.
16. They consider that the Respondent has wrongly identified systemic failures to
exist, misconstruing evidence of individual failings for evidence of systemic failure.
Moreover, it has failed to take proper account of the Appellant’s ability to improve, or
of actual improvements made. They maintain that it was a theme throughout the
hearing that the inspectors had been hypercritical throughout the hearing.
17. The Respondent’s position is that the Appellant has not demonstrated sufficiently
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting