MR ROBERT RHOADES CROSS - APPELLANT
and
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL - RESPONDENTS
Decision of the Registered Homes Tribunal held at the Education Offices, 14 Sir Thomas Street, Liverpool on Monday 6 November 1989.
Appeal by Mr Robert Rhoades Cross, with reference to 26 Prescot Drive, Liverpool.
THE TRIBUNAL
Mr William Morris Jones (Chairman)
Miss Kathleen Mary Wells and
Mr John Ingram Stephens
REPRESENTATION
The Appellant, Mr Robert Rhoades Cross, appeared in person and represented himself.
Mr Gorden Bellis of Counsel instructed by the City Solicitor for the Respondents.
DECISION
The Chairman on behalf of the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
REASON
The Registered Homes Tribunal derives its existence and authority from the Registered Homes Act 1984, and the Rules and Regulations made, from time to time, pursuant to the said Act. It has no inherent jurisdiction.
Appeals from a decision of a registration authority "shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal". Section 15 of the 1984 Act. Further the form of orders which a Tribunal make is set out in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 15 of the 1984 Act.
In the decision of Mr Justice Roch in the matter of Warwickshire County Council v McSweeney (heard on 8 December 1988 - QB CO/1923/87 "only those conditions which are referred to in Section 5(3) of the 1984 Act are the conditions which can be lawfully imposed either by the registration authority at the first instance or by the Registered Homes Tribunal on appeal". (On page 6 line F).
The relevant features of this present appeal appear to be as follows:-
The Appellant was registered by the Respondents on 4 July 1986 for 14 elderly mentally infirm residents.
It became apparent about the end of September 1988 that the Appellant was in serious financial difficulties, and on 3 October 1988, as the result of an application in the Chancery Division of the High Court, Manchester District Registry before H H Judge O'Donoghue, Mr Klempton, a chartered accountant, was appointed Receiver and manager of (inter alia) 26 Prescot Drive, Liverpool.
It is clear from Order 30 of rules of the supreme Court and also Ker on Receivers, that the legal estate of the appellant in 26 Prescot Drive was unaffected, and during December 1988 and subsequently by the said order, the Respondents correctly followed the procedure under Section 12, 13 and 14 of the 1984 Act.
On 16 January 1989, the Appellant, through his then solicitor, signed a document entitled "Representations against the Reasons of the Sub-Committee." Paragraph B reads as follows:- "I concede that proper financial controls were not exercised for various reasons some of which were within and some of which were beyond my control. In the circumstances I cannot object to the decision of the Sub-Committee on this ground."
There is a copy of "Comment of the Director of Social Services on the Representations of the Appellant", dated 16 January 1988 in which in paragraph 1, it is noted that the Appellant indicates that he cannot object to the decision of the Sub-Committee on the grounds that the proper financial controls were not exercised, but is appealing against the finding that the well-being of residents is at risk.
It would appear that at this stage of the matter, the Appellant concedes that the Respondents are correct upon the first limb of their statement of reasons and that accordingly the Appellant's Certificate of Registration may be cancelled.
In or about March 1989, 26 Prescot Drive and the business of the residential care home were sold to a third party, and the appellant thereupon had no "establishment" within Section 1 of the 1984 Act. In Decision 12, Dennis Yang v Worcestershire County Council, it was found as a question of law, that a person cannot be registered in respect of a property which he does not own and in which he cannot carry on a residential home. The question of an appeal under Section 15 is therefore in issue, because the appeal of this Appellant must fail and the decision of the Respondents be confirmed. To do otherwise would, in theory, enable the appellant to retain the Certificate of Registration in respect of 26 Prescot Drive, which is in practise no longer possible.
The Tribunal have been put into the position where they have no effective decision to make, the outcome of the hearing of any evidence and submissions are a foregone conclusion. The decision of the Respondents is confirmed.
On 6 October 1989, the Respondents delivered to the Appellant a formal statement of reasons pursuant to Rule 5 of the 1984 Act, limited to the lack of proper financial controls and the consequent results of this, to which the appellant had conceded on 16 January 1989.
On 11 October 1989, the Appellant appeals.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, there would appear to be no authority at law to enable the Tribunal to hear this "Appeal".
December 1989
W M Jones (Chairman)
K M Wells
J I Stephens