Mrs P Walton-Masters v Hampshire County Council

It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Appellant's appeal succeeds and that the decision of the Respondents to cancel her registration shall not have effect.

BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

The relevant Sub-Committee met on 26 April 1990 to consider the cancellation of the registration of the Appellant. The recommendation of the Director of Social Services was accepted. The Appellant appealed. A hearing before the Registered Homes Tribunal, set down for 10 and 11 October 1990, was adjourned by consent. The Appellant gave a written undertaking to complete a Schedule of Works, dated 28 December 1990, by 1 April 1991. This included, inter alia, necessary fire precautions. By 1 April 1991 the Appellant had substantially performed all the Works. Certain items were outstanding, but these were outside the Appellant's control and due to her contractor's default By 2 August 1991 all the requirements had been met.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

As far as the Respondents are concerned the Appellant is no longer in breach of their requirements. The Respondents, through their officers, have made numerous visits to the Home. The quality of care was found to be good. Formal fire training has been arranged for staff. The requirements of the Fire Officer and of the Respondents have been met.

A report on the outstanding appeal was considered by the Operations Sub-Committee on 31 January 1992. The meeting was attended by the Appellant and her solicitor. The Sub-Committee accepted the recommendation of the Director of Social Services that (1) the proprietor's appeal to the Tribunal against cancellation should not be opposed; (2) that the Tribunal be asked to determine the appeal on written submissions rather than by way of a formal Hearing, in order to save on costs and public expense and (3) that a progress report on outstanding items be provided in six months time.

The Respondents, in correspondence with the Registered Homes Tribunal Secretariat, made it absolutely clear that the legal representatives of the Appellant and the Respondents are both of the view that this matter is now to all intents and purposes resolved and that there are no outstanding issues that require consideration in a Public Hearing. They asked that the Tribunal allows the appeal on the basis of those written submissions. The Tribunal agreed that this was a sensible and practical approach, and found that, since the burden of proof is on the Respondents, and since the Respondents have offered no evidence and have said they will not oppose the Appellant's appeal the appeal accordingly succeeds.