Assissi Community Care Ltd v Devon County Council

The Tribunal unanimously allows the appeal and grants registration to the Appellant in respect of Francis House as a registered care home for 40 men in need of personal care by reason of past or present dependence on alcohol.

REASONS

Mr and Mrs Crumpton have formed Assisi Community Care Limited which since August 1988 has run Francis House as a hostel for between 40 and 50 men suffering and recovering from alcohol dependence. For this, of course, there is no need for them or the company to be registered under the 1984 Act.

In October 1988 application was made under the Act for registration in respect of Francis Souse as a residential home to care for 40 men in need of care by reason of past or present dependence on alcohol.

In March 1989 the Respondent finally refused the application. The reasons given were:

The Committee's decision was founded upon certain paragraphs in the guidelines they had drawn up to cover applications relating to homes of this nature.

Paragraph 5 requires that:

"The registered person in charge of the day to day running of the home and designated deputy must have at least two years' experience at a senior level in a residential care home; and/or are of the following qualifications: CQSW, CSS, RGN, (SRN), EN, (SEN), RMN."

In relation to the two year rule the Paragraph went on:

"Two years' experience in Residential Care in a senior position in the Care Group applied for, … i.e. Staff Management, Care of Client Group applied for, Administration Management."

Paragraph l(c) provides:

"The maximum number of residents that would normally be considered for new registrations is 10, but, exceptionally, homes in excess of these limits may be considered for registration if they provide specialist care for residents with high degrees of dependency or disablement."

and paragraph l(d):

"The purpose of a home is to provide a warm and caring base to enable people with alcohol or drug dependence to live as full and interesting life as possible using facilities in the community. Each resident should be encouraged to develop his or her full abilities and opportunities for this should be given."

And paragraph 7(a)(v) provides:

"The home should be in close proximity to public facilities and be within ¼ mile of public transport…
Location will be judged on the aims of the establishment."

It is convenient to deal with this appeal in two parts, the one relating to the premises and their location, the other relating to the qualifications of the Crumptons, and in that order.

The Premises and Their Location

As the case was put to us there were two main points relied upon, namely the somewhat isolated position of Francis House and the fact that a home for 40 residents was too large to be suitable for the proposed purposes as it would lead to an institutional type of establishment which was contrary to modern trends.

Before considering these points it is necessary to have regard to the accepted three stages of dealing with recovering alcoholics. These stages are detoxification, stabilisation and reintegration into the community. The first stage is a medical matter and normally requires hospital-like treatment. The second stage is one which depends primarily upon building up the alcoholic's self-respect and giving him the will to break from drinking. The third stage, which can only be started upon when the second has been reasonably successfully completed is the return of the person to society.

The purpose of Francis House is to deal with the second stage of stabilisation taking in persons almost literally off the streets, provided they share a willingness to accept care and treatment. For two weeks it is a rule that a person remains on the premises, and only after that can he venture out. It is a strict rule that any drinking disqualifies a resident from staying on. All this is made clear to those applying for a place.

The premises are in a rural setting about a mile from the village of Swimbridge. Swimbridge is a small village with only the usual limited village facilities, about 5 miles from Barnstaple on the road to Taunton. It is served by public transport. Francis House is reached by a steep tarred road from Swimbridge up and over the hills which divide it from the village.

They comprise two main buildings, Francis House and Clare House which previously housed a school for 55 children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and run by the Crumptons. The buildings are being gradually converted from school premises to accommodation more suited to adult needs. Francis House itself provides bedroom accommodation in shared rooms for 18 residents and Clare House accommodation for 22 in single rooms.

Francis House, houses the administrative offices, kitchen and dining room, some three sitting rooms for residents and a recreation room with a pool table.

Clare House about 50 yards away provides two lounges, a fully equipped carpentry workshop, a pottery with a kiln, a gymnasium presently being refurbished, a billiard room under construction and a chapel. Residents in this house take their meals at Francis House, though they have tea and coffee making facilities available.

The two houses are on a south-facing slope looking over grass and a series of river pools to the hills the other side of the valley. The situation is either isolated, or tranquil and peaceful, according to one's point of view.

In the grounds there are some goats, ducks, geese, chickens and a quite extensive vegetable garden maintained primarily by the residents. The river pools provide some coarse fishing.

We heard evidence from three witnesses with considerable experience in dealing with the treatment of alcoholics and they all expressed almost unqualified approval of the situation of Francis House, the accommodation provided and the activities offered. They all felt that the sense of community created outweighed any danger of the home having an institutional atmosphere. Their evidence was that there was something offered to a wide variety of persons to encourage them to become self-reliant and to associate easily with the other residents.

In our necessarily brief visit to the premises we were equally impressed by the community atmosphere and the informality that prevailed.

We were told that the average stay is about 6 months though some may remain for as long as 18 months. Taking this into account and the fact that as a rule the people who will become residents are not disabled or frail we were entirely satisfied that both from the point of view of its location and the nature of the premises themselves there was no question of them being unfit for the purpose for which it was proposed to use them.

We appreciate the difficulties faced by the Respondent in drawing up guidelines for residential homes to deal with those with drug and alcohol dependence problems. These stem from a variety of factors such as the variety of care needed in the different stages of treatment. As we were told a home even for stabilisation in an urban environment may well need to be limited as a rule to 10 residents. But where there is the wide choice of activities offered by Francis House to the particular client group for which it caters, we see no reason on the evidence we have heard to refuse registration on the ground that the premises are not suitable either because of their size and arrangement or because of their location.

Qualifications

Again we appreciate the reasons underlying the Respondent's approach to the need for qualifications for persons who have care of recovering alcoholics and the difficulties underlying the formulation of requirements. The evidence we heard from the three experienced witnesses already referred to was that the formal qualifications in themselves were not of great use in ensuring the requisite knowledge and ability. Much more depended it was said upon the character and attitudes of the individual, coupled of course with experience.

On the point of experience we were told that the guidelines were drawn up in consultation with a number of other authorities in the south-west, including Gloucester, which in the end required only one year's experience. This perhaps indicates the continual need for a flexible approach.

It was common cause that the experience of Mr and Mrs Crumpton in dealing with the care of alcoholics was very limited at the time of the application. From October 1957 to June 1988 they were involved in running two hostels one in Ilfracombe and one in Barnstaple for the homeless and for alcoholics and thereafter in running Francis House. But strictly neither of these were residential homes though the basis upon which they were run virtually made them such.

Apart from this experience the Crumptons are educated professional people. They are both fully-qualified teachers with a wide experience of teaching normal children and well as those mentally and physically handicapped. From 1985 to 1988 they were joint principals of the school for teenage children up to 18 years of age with emotional and behavioural difficulties on the present premises. This in itself brought them into contact with problems of alcoholism in the families of the children concerned. This gave them a wealth of administrative experience in running a large establishment and dealing with the requisite staff. It has also given them valuable experience in dealing with statutory and other bodies concerned with the care of dependent groups. Mrs Crumpton is at present attending a course in Family Counselling at Exeter University.

Apart from the fact that they do not fall squarely within the qualifications in the Respondent's guidelines, not one word of criticism of them has been expressed to us by any of the Respondent's witnesses with whom they have been in close contact for over a year now. Indeed Mr Ashley, the Respondent's main witness said very frankly and fairly that in his view consideration should be given to granting registration in respect of ten residents despite the lack of formal qualifications.

Having heard Mr and Mrs Crumpton giving evidence and having had an opportunity of assessing their suitability for running the proposed residential home in the light of their cross-examination and of the other evidence of the apparent success of Francis House as a hostel since August 1988, we have no hesitation in saying that we think they are fit to run such an establishment. We think that this is a case where the Council's guidelines as to qualifications should be flexibly applied and should not be strictly adhered to to exclude persons so clearly suitable.

Conclusion

For all these reasons we think that this is a case where the appeal should succeed, and that the applicant should be registered in respect of Francis House, Swimbridge as a residential care home for 40 men in need of care by reason of past or present dependence on alcohol.

We should like to stress that the grant of registration will make the applicant more accountable to the authority in regard to its administration of the establishment and in regard to level of care which can be required of it as a registered home. We hope that the present high level of co-operation between the Crumptons and the Council staff will continue, and will not be affected by the fact that their views on the question of registration have not been accepted by the Tribunal. We should not like anything to occur to prejudice the continued operation of what seems such a necessary and worthwhile enterprise.

Signed

J C R FIELDSEND (CHAIRMAN)
J J REGAN
J STEPHENS