Harlequin Retirement Homes Ltd v Isle of Wight County Council

The Tribunal unanimously dismisses the appeal.

REASONS

Camellia Rest Home was originally owned by a Mr and Mrs Hawkins. They were granted registration in February 1986 for 6 residents increased in October to 7.

In April 1988 the Appellant gave notice of his intention to buy the home and in May lodged a formal application for registration. At this stage he gave no details in regard to staffing as required by the Respondent as this was under review by the Appellant pending the purchase. Contracts for the purchase were exchanged on 6 June 1988, and completion took place on 9 June at a total price of £92, 500.

Between April and 8 June 1988 the Respondent's officials had visited and inspected the premises, but had not drawn attention to any substantial faults, though it was common cause that a good deal of repair and refurbishment was required.

On 9 June, as part of a programme of visiting all homes on the Island, Mr Davison, the Director of Social Services visited the premises. He was particularly concerned about the steepness of the staircase, and the way in which the bottom two steps impeded access to the lounge. The awkwardness was exacerbated by the fact that a distance of 760mm from the bottom step there was a further step down of 170mm to the level of the hall. This made transit from the lounge to the hall, from which there was access to a resident's room very difficult particularly for the occupant who could move only with a zimmer frame.

The staircase consists of 13 steps, most of the risers measuring 175mm, the bottom step being 210mm and the top 155mm. The treads, or the gaing, were all 200mm wide. The overall angle of the staircase was 44°, and a second handrail had been added in the past to assist elderly residents to negotiate the stairs, the width between the handrails being 730mm. The stairway did not comply with building regulations for new dwellings in that they require a pitch of not more than 42° for a private stair, or 38° for stair serving two or more dwellings and the gaing to be at least 220 mm and 240 mm respectively. For institutional buildings the gaing required is 280mm. It was accepted, however, that existing staircases which did not comply were not regarded as contravening the regulations.

Both Mr Davison, and Mrs Causins, the Principal Homes Manager of the Respondent, gave evidence that in their view the staircase was hazardous because of its steepness, the narrowness of the treads and the awkwardness at the bottom. Mrs Causins was concerned that elderly residents could not on their own safely use the stairway especially coming down and would therefore be restricted in their movements, if they had to seek assistance when coming downstairs. Mr Davison said that he had not seen such a steep and hazardous staircase in any of the homes on the Island that he had visited.

There was little, if any, cross-examination of these witnesses on these aspects, and little if any evidence to contradict them. It was said that the home had operated for 3 years without any accident on the staircase and that no complaint had been made about it either on first registration or until 9 June 1988.

The nature of the staircase was the principal reason relied upon by the Respondent for refusing registration, and with that in mind the Tribunal at the request of both parties inspected the premises.

Our unanimous view coincided with that of Mr Davison and Mrs Causins. The staircase is adequately depicted in the photographs produced by the Appellant. It is steep and the treads are too narrow even for a reasonably agile person to use without care. It is difficult to come down safely without turning one's feet at an angle to the stair and exercising some caution. The obstruction of the entrance to lounge by the protrusion of l1/2 steps makes access to that room, both from the stairway and the hall difficult and hazardous for elderly and infirm persons.

We had no hesitation in concluding that the Respondent was justified in refusing registration of this home for the elderly on the basis of the inadequacy of the staircase and on this basis alone we have to dismiss the appeal.

The other main issue concerned the matter of staffing. Section 9(b) of the Act in effect requires the registering authority to be satisfied that the staffing of any home is adequate. See too section l0(l)(a) of the Regulations. It is for this reason that details are required from applicants of the names and qualifications of staff to be employed and of the hours they will work. These details were not supplied in this form by the Appellant in this case, though this is not relied on. What is relied on is that two employees, Mrs Lang and Mrs Ruth, said that on many occasions the accepted requirement of the presence of two staff on the premises at all times was not met. This was corroborated to some extent by the evidence of Mr Knight, a homes manager, and Mrs Causins that on 14 and 17 October and 2 November there was only one person on duty. Further, the wage sheets produced by Mrs Dodson, the Appellant's general manager, showed that in September and October 1988 the number of hours paid for fell very short of the number of hours that should have been paid for.

In our view on the material before it the Respondent was justified in concluding that it was not satisfied that its staffing requirements would be met. In the light of the evidence we do not think that the undertaking to provide proper staffing given to the Tribunal by Mr Baines and Mrs Dodson for the Respondent is sufficient for us to interfere with the Respondent's conclusion.

For these reasons we unanimously dismiss the appeal.