Parkview Rest Home (Liverpool) Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Unanimous. The appeal be allowed. We direct that the decision of the Respondents shall not have effect, and that Parkview may be registered for 25 elderly persons as agreed between the parties.

Parkview was formed as a company in 1986 primarily to run Parkview Residential Care Home. It is a family run company with four share holders, ail of whom are related and three of whom are directors. As the result of the purchase of the next door house and of additional building development, the registration certificate was granted by the Respondents to Parkview on 8 February 1990 for 22 elderly female persons. When the application form for the registration was submitted to the Respondents a request was made to have two residents in a double room. At the time there were 22 rooms available for residents at Parkview and 22 residents occupying the rooms which were all single rooms. The policy of the Respondents at the time was that whenever a double room was occupied by two residents then another room within the home had to be kept empty in order to provide an alternative choice to either of those residents in the event that, for example, they fell out or did not wish to continue joint occupation of one room. In or about February 1990 there was a request on behalf of Parkview for a variation of the registration to 22/23 residents. However in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal Decision No 106 Hancox and Liverpool City Council it is quite clear that such a form of registration is ultra vires (see section 5(3) of the Registered Homes Act 1984).

In the information booklet issued by the Respondents in the paragraph dealing with standard accommodation they provide that "the sharing of bedroom accommodation should not be permitted" except in the case of married residents or couples who have lived together as man and wife but that in addition establishments should be permitted to have no more than one bedroom to be shared by two people (not being married couple) in exceptional circumstances and where the residents concerned consent to such an agreement". It also goes on to deal with the area of a double bedroom which must be a minimum of 167 square feet.

The proposed double bedrooms in Parkview are bedrooms number 5 and 11 both on the first floor and number 16 on the second floor which has the facility of an en suite toilet (together with a wash hand basin). At the time of the hearing all three rooms were occupied by one resident only, none of whom were prepared to share the accommodation.

Hearing

Mr Bellis opened for the Respondents and presented the Respondent's case.

Visit

The Tribunal visited Parkview. In particular they looked at each one of the rooms numbered 5, 11 and 16 and of the toilet and bathroom facilities available in respect of these rooms. They also looked at the public accommodation that is to say the lounges and sitting areas, the dining room and the toilet and washing facilities in connection with this area of the home. The size of each one of the rooms numbered 5, 11 and 16 are sufficiently large to conform to the standards required by the Respondents and to enable adequate furniture and chairs for the comfort of two residents if that became necessary. It was also noted that call buttons or switched were available for two persons.

Upon the resumption of the hearing Mr Bellis on behalf of the Respondents indicated that they would not call evidence in support of the Respondent s statement of reasons and that they would agree that in substitution for the present registration certificate "the number of persons for whom residential accommodation with both board and personal care is provided at any time shall not exceed 25 persons. Such persons to be accommodated in 22 bedrooms of which three (namely rooms numbered 5, 11 and 16) may be shared upon prior written approval of the registration authority such decision to be reached within seven days of application being received by the said authority".