William Palmer v Devon County Council

It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Registration Authority to cancel his registration be dismissed, and that the said decision be confirmed.

Application for an adjournment and decision

The Appellant made an application for a 3-month adjournment to allow him to locate a file which he said was necessary to help him prove his case after receiving documents from the Respondents and in particular, Mr Hughes' statement. Essentially this file, in the possession of the Minister of Health, would explain why the earlier financial problems which had been experienced arose in 1988.

The Respondents did not agree to such an adjournment. The essence of their objection was that his previous financial difficulties were not directly relevant to his present financial circumstances and that it was his present bankruptcy which was the relevant issue. The Appellant has failed to make out why this particular file needs to be consulted at this stage. Further, unless the Appellant is able to persuade the Tribunal that his financial problems arose in the last few weeks, he has had sufficient time (since July 1991) to prepare generally for this Tribunal hearing, particularly since the issues raised by Mr Hughes are not materially different from the issues raised by the Respondents in March 1991, the time of the first sub-committee meeting when notice of proposal to cancel was raised.

The Tribunal, having retired to consider the application, and having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, decided not to grant the adjournment. Its reason was that it had heard nothing to convince it that the file of which the Appellant spoke is relevant to the question of his present bankruptcy. It appears it refers to historical information relating to the Torbay Health Authority and is irrelevant in the Tribunal's view, to the issue between the Appellant and the Respondents. Further, if it is relevant, which is denied, the Tribunal feels that the Appellant has had ample opportunity to seek this evidence earlier.

Brief history of the dispute

The Appellant was first registered as owner of the Home on taking over from his mother in 1966. By 1973 he was registered for up to 15 residents, having altered and extended the property, and later still for 24. In 1988 there were financial problems concerning mortgage arrears and a warrant (not enforced) of possession. In November 1990 the Respondents were informed that the Appellant had been declared bankrupt, and a Trustee in Bankruptcy was appointed. He intended to continue to run the Home as a business and to place it on the market for sale. In February 1991 the Trustee informed the Respondents that it had not been possible to find a purchaser. The business would be closed on February 28th. The residents were found alternative accommodation and left before this time.

A resolution was passed by the relevant sub-committee giving notice of their intention to cancel the registration, and the Appellant indicated that he would appeal. However, he failed to attend the meeting on 31st May. The registration was cancelled on the grounds that the Appellant was not a fit person. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Respondents' Case

In brief, the case is that the Appellant had had previous financial difficulties. This, coupled with the recent events, satisfies them that he lacks business acumen and the necessary financial control to run a residential care home successfully. The security and general well-being of residents would be put at risk by a financially-unsound business venture. The Appellant remains an undischarged bankrupt and it is very difficult, and generally inappropriate, to obtain credit in this position. The property is still being offered for sale by the mortgagee and other creditors. The practicalities of running a care Home are, in these circumstances, impossible, and that makes him unfit.

The Appellant's case

Equally in brief, the substance of the Appellant's case is that he has plans to resolve the situation, that he has received advice that there is no reason he cannot operate with a partner who would undertake the financial side of the business. His debts mainly arose as a consequence of alterations and improvements to the Home. His present financial arrangements are being dealt with by a firm of management consultant.

The Tribunal's reasons for its decision

The Tribunal is most regretfully unable to reach any other conclusion than that the Appellant is unfit. He cannot run a Home it he has no means and is in debt. He offered no written evidence to support the plans which he outlined at the hearing and which suggested that his financial position was likely to change within the near future. In reaching this decision the Tribunal also took into account the fact that the Appellant has had serious financial problems in the past.

However, at any time in the future it will be open to the Appellant to demonstrate his fitness to any Registration Authority to whom an application to register might be made.