Mr Paul Twentyman - Appellant
v
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council - Respondent
Decision of the Registered Homes Tribunal held at Trafford Town Hall, Talbot Road, Stratford, Trafford, Greater Manchester M32 0YT on Monday 9 July 1990.
Appeal by Mr Paul Twentyman in respect of the proposal by Trafford Borough Council to cancel the registration of the residential care home known as Grove Lodge, 15 Clarendon Road, Sale, Greater Manchester.
The Tribunal
Mr William Morris Jones (Chairman)
Miss Kathleen Mary Wells
Mr David Wakefield
Representation
Mr F L Watts of Independent Care Consultants for the Appellant (who was not present)
Mr J D Bonney of Council instructed by the Legal Department of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council - the Respondents
Preliminary Application
Mr Watts sought an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal, which was opposed on behalf of the Respondents.
On behalf of the Appellant, it was submitted that his premises, Grove Lodge, was on the market for sale as a residential care home. The agents had found prospective purchasers, but the proposed sales had fallen through. However, there was a prospective purchaser, who had shown genuine interest in the business as a going concern, and had applied to the Respondents for registration in respect of Grove Lodge. There was no contract for the sale and purchase between the parties. There were eight letters from persons who were responsible for residents who were or had been accommodated at Grove Lodge. One letter from a resident still being cared for there and one letter from the GP. It was submitted that the conduct of the home was satisfactory and that no resident was presently at risk.
On behalf of the Appellant, it was submitted that if there was concern for the residents, then the Respondent could consider taking action under the urgent procedure for cancellation of registration provided by Section 11 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. There would also be an undertaking on behalf of the Appellant that there would be no new admissions to Grove Lodge thereby "safeguarding the residents".
If the present negotiations for sale came to fruition, then the Appellant could give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Tribunal that he desired to withdraw his appeal as provided by Rule 12 of the Registered Homes Tribunals Rules 1984 (SI 1346).
In opposition to an adjournment, Mr Bonney submitted that the sole purpose of the application to adjourn the hearing was for business expediency. So far as the proposed sale was concerned there was no correspondence from either the agent or the solicitors to indicate what negotiations were taking place, nor to reveal what measure of success might be achieved. Clearly there had been other attempts to effect a sale without success. At this stage, the conclusion of a binding contract for sale of Grove Lodge was a mere hope. Any purchaser would have to apply de novo to the Respondents for registration. The dissatisfaction of the Respondents to the matters (which will be referred to later in this decision) had been made know to the Appellant in October 1989, and an adjournment would only extend the delay in having the matter heard and considered by a Tribunal.
The Tribunal had amongst their papers
Affidavits:-
(a) Michael Anthony Windridge sworn 14 June 1990 (Station Officer of Sale Fire Station)
(b) Paul Christopher Adams sworn 7 June 1990 (Bank Manager of TSB Bank plc, Sale Moor, Cheshire)
and Statements:-
(1) Mrs Elizabeth Mary Greenwood, a Registration Officer of the Respondents
(2) Mrs Violet Mary Morton, an Officer of the Respondents
(3) Miss Elizabeth Anne Wilson, a Medical Social Worker of the Respondents
(4) Mrs Colette Patricia Twentyman - the wife of the Appellant dated 2 July 1990
(5) Mrs Susan Kempton - Assistant Marton at Grove Lodge dated 2 July 1990
These Statements were undated, but the makers of the statements were all able to give oral evidence at the hearing.
The Tribunal considered the submissions made on behalf of each of the Parties, unanimously decided that the application to adjourn the hearing should be refused and that the hearing should commence forthwith. Upon reading the Affidavits (which were not in dispute) and also the Statements, it seemed clear that there were issues between the parties which should be heard, although no determination of the merit of any of such issues could be made until the hearing of the oral evidence to be given on behalf of each one of the parties.
The Tribunal noted Rule 8 of the Registered Homes Tribunals Rules 1984 (aforesaid) which clearly provides (inter alia) t hat it is "the tribunal" which determines the question of adjournments, and not, the Chairman. Section 41 of The Registered Homes Act 1984 provides that the constitution of the Tribunal shall consist of "a chairman and two other members".
The Evidence
For the Appellant:
Mrs Colette Patricia Twentyman - the wife of the Appellant and
Mrs Susan Kempton - Assistant Matron at Grove Lodge.
For the Respondent:
Mrs Elizabeth Mary Greenwood
Mrs Violet Mary Morton and
Miss Elizabeth Anne Wilson.
The Affidavits of Mr Michael Anthony Windridge and of Mr Paul Christopher Adams were admitted by the Appellant and neither deponent was called.
The Issue
That the Appellant is not a fit person to be concerned in carrying on a residential care home.
Decision
(Unanimous) The Tribunal confirm the decision of the Respondent registration authority.
The reasons for the Respondent's decision may be divided in other categories:
Contravening Section 5(3) of the Registered Homes Act 1984 by admitting three residents to Grove Lodge in addition to the nine residents for which the home was registered.
Failing to keep and maintain Records to be kept in a Home in accordance with Schedule 2 of The Residential Care Home Regulations 1984 SI 1345 (as amended by SI 1192 of 1988).
Allegation of Inappropriate and Unprofessional Attitude towards financial dealing with residents at Grove Lodge.
Category (a)
As the result of an anonymous telephone call, Mrs Greenwood visited Grove Lodge on 27 October 1989. She found that three additional residents were at the Home namely:-
Mr Samuel Price-Harris Aged 84
(admitted approximately three monthly before)
Mr Tom Evans Aged 84
(admitted approximately 4-5 months before) and
Mr Stan Myer Aged 80
(admitted approximately six weeks before).
This was the first occasion that this situation had been discovered by the Respondents.
In her evidence Mrs Twentyman told the Tribunal that the Appellant has some time before the event outlined above, contacted the Department of Social Security to find out how many residents might be accommodated in their private accommodation without the need to register under the Registered Homes Act 1984. He was told that three residents could be housed. Upon cross-examination, she did not know the form of the Appellant's enquiry, but said that she did not think that he had explained that the private accommodation was part of a duly registered residential care home. Further, the Appellant did not, to her knowledge, contact the Respondent concerning this enquiry.
The accommodation in question consisted of one single room with a small window with a view restricted to the roof tops only, and a double room with only a roof light and no window. This room did not conform to the necessary standards laid down by the Respondents for a double room, although it was used as such. The rooms were attic rooms approached by steep narrow stairs hazardous to elderly people. They were condemned as inadequate for such occupation by the Fire Officer, Mr M A Windridge.
This accommodation was not incorporated into the central heating system, and there were no lavatories, bathrooms or wash basins on this floor of the building.
The three elderly residents who were paying full fees, had to make use of facilities and accommodation on the lower floors of Grove Lodge which was suitable for the nine residents for whim it was registered, but the lounge and dining areas were overcrowded.
The arrangements for these three elderly residents at night was totally unsatisfactory, although it was claimed that commodes were used. There were no washing facilities on that attic floor and evidence was not satisfactory in explaining how commodes were dealt with after use.
The Appellant did not deny the facts of these matters, once they came to light. Mrs Twentyman said that both she and the Appellant did not believe that they were doing anything wrong, until the error of their ways was pointed out to them.
As soon as this offence was found out, prompt arrangements were put in hand to reduce the number of residents in Grove Lodge to nine.
Category (b)
Records It was conceded on behalf of the Appellant that the records at Grove Lodge were not in order. They did not conform to the statutory requirements. In a long written submission, Mr Watts on behalf of the Appellant indicated that some were not kept and others were not satisfactorily kept. He stated "Whilst the form of some of Grove Lodge's record are not the way in which I would keep such records, they are nevertheless quite satisfactory for the purposes of this `small' Home". It was pointed out the Home was first registered in 1983, and the question of compliance was the provisions to records should have been pursued before 1989.
Two matters came out in the evidence. One was that a day and night record book was produced referring to nine residents between 1 June 1989 and 28 October 1989. A further A4 size book was discovered containing night reports dated from 30 September 1989 to 28 October 1989 making reference to twelve residents including Mr Price-Harris, Mr Evans and Mr Myer. The other matter was that no record could be produced to conform with paragraph 17 (as amended) Schedule 2 of The Residential Care Homes Regulations 1984 when Mrs Twentyman confirmed in her evidence that the Appellant dealt with the financial affairs of two residents.
Category (c)
Financial affairs concerning residents The lack of records of financial dealing with residents' valuables and money is relevant in this category of reasons for the Respondents decision.
On behalf of the Appellant, Mrs Twentyman agreed that there were no records, although the Appellant had collected pensions for two of the residents at one time, and dealt with their pocket money. She could give no explanation.
There were difficulties with one resident a Mr "T". In or about December 1988 Mr "T" received a sum of money in excess of £46,000. A letter was written dated 19 December 1988 to the Bank of which the deponent Mr P C Adams was then the Manager, enclosing a cheque for the sum in question to be paid into Mrs T's account and then providing "Also I wish to transfer to Mr and Mrs P Twentyman's account the sum of £25,000. Their account number is ???????? This is my own wish and although this letter is written for me I have signed of my own free will under no coercion". The evidence of Mrs Twentyman is that this letter was written by the Appellant.
There were however two other letters. One dated 26 November 1988, for the provision of advanced fees to Grove Lodge was signed by both the Appellant and Mrs Twentyman, and headed "1 Year Contact".
The other letter dated 27 November 1988 (the following day) was in Mrs "T" 's handwriting and her signature was witnessed by Mrs Susan Kempton and a Mr A T McEvoy, who, so Mrs Twentyman said, was a friend of the Appellant, and that she took this letter to the Bank.
The question of Mrs "T" 's ability to understand what she was doing and her competence to handle her financial affairs was dealt with by Mrs E A Wilson in her evidence. In the events which happened, no capital sum was paid to the Appellant nor to Mrs Twentyman and Mrs "T" died on 8 April 1989.
There was conflict of evidence between Mrs Twentyman and Mrs Susan Kempton. One version of the signed letter dated 27 November 1988 was that Mrs Kempton was a voluntary witness, the other was that she was asked by Mrs Twentyman to be a witness to the signing of Mrs "T".
Conclusions
In considering whether the Appellant is a fit person or not, the Tribunal turned to the final paragraph of the of the Decision No 76 Azzopardi v London Borough of Havering.
Evidence is clear that by admitting the extra three residents, the Appellant did not approach the Respondents. Full fees were charged, and he knew or should have know that the accommodation was unsuitable for the use to which it was put. The Appellant did not disclose the fact that there were more than nine residents in Home; he was found out.
The Tribunal considered Section 1 of the 1984 Act which refers to an "establishment" which must include all accommodation within that establishment. In determining the type and numbers of residents to be housed in the establishment for which it is or will be registered some rooms may be deemed to be suitable for a limited number of residents, but this does not mean that there are separate units within the establishment nor does it create a "registered room". It is the establishment which is registered.
The Appellant was clearly in breach of the Regulations for the keeping of Documents and Records. The size of the Home is no excuse for curtailing the requirements for the keeping of records. The Appellant knew that he was at fault in this respect for which he offered no excuse.
The Tribunal was particularly concerned with the allegations of improper financial dealing of the residents' affairs at Grove Lodge. The individual dealings with the affairs of Mrs "T" were unsatisfactory to say the least, and, generally, the failure to keep proper and accurate records of valuables and of financial transactions on behalf of residents is clearly wrong and for which failure no excuse was offered.
The Tribunal was asked to consider the three categories of reasons for the Respondents' decision in isolation and not together, and to discount the events in November and December of 1988. In considering the conduct of the Appellant, the Tribunal took into account all the evidence in coming to their decision, notwithstanding the dates of some of the events which impinge upon the quality of fitness.
W MORRIS JONES