DECISION OF THE REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNAL HELD AT HUDDERSFIELD TOWN HALL ON MONDAY 22 JULY 1985
Appeal of Mr Colin Gresty against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Council refusing registration for three additional places at The Bell House, Wilshaw, Meltham, Huddersfield.
Appearance: Mr Hirst (Counsel) for the Appellant
Mrs Stephens (Solicitor) for the Authority
Witnesses: Mr C Gresty) for Appellant
Mr W Hughes)
Decision
It was the unanimous decision of the tribunal that the Appeal should be allowed and that Mr Gresty should be allowed to increase the number of residents from 9 to 12.
The reasons for refusal by the Authority are set out in their document dated 13 February 1985. Although the reasons were amplified and explained at the hearing as set out in their document dated 13 February they were far from clear, and we had difficulty in understanding the substance of their case. We need not repeat it in this report. Further assistance came from the statement dated 13 June.
The Appellant's case is set out in the grounds of Appeal submitted by the Appellant.
In addition the Appellant submitted a number of letters from interested parties whose relatives had been residents, or interested in Bell House. They included a letter from the Member of Parliament for the local constituency.
The Issues
Put briefly and summarising, the grounds of the refusal of the Council were twofold. First, the isolated position of Bell House. Secondly, the increase to 12 residents would undermine the existing family relationships between staff and residents.
The Appellant's case was in essence that :
There was demand for a home in a rural setting.
That a number of residents could not leave the home for physical and personal reasons in any event, and were 'isolated' by those matters.
That the increase to 12 would not adversely affect the relationship between staff and residents, and staff could be increased if required.
That he would be given the opportunity to prove his point in accordance with one of the four options (No 4) put to the Committee as recorded in document dated 10 April 1985.
The tribunal visited Bell House, thanks to transport provided by the Authority. We were impressed by the high standards provided. there was no complaint by the Authority of Mr Gresty or his staff. The Local Authority described the House as 'impressive'. Mr Gresty's ability 'not in doubt'.
Background
There is little purpose in setting this out in detail. The discussions between the parties straddled 1984 and 1985. The Act became effective in January 1985 which may well have had some bearing on the thinking of the Local Authority and the priorities they gave to their decision. Reference was made to 'Home Life' and Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3.
Reasons for decision of the Tribunal :
Having seen the location of Bell House, and bearing in mind that some of the residents, by virtue of age and incapacity, could not leave the home for long (7 out of 8incontinent, and some suffering from dementia) we did not consider the residents to be isolated primarily by their environment.
That some residents obviously enjoyed the very happy rural setting of the home.
That Mr Gresty and his staff should in fairness be given the chance of showing that he could take the increase to 12, without any reduction in the quality of staff, resident relationship.
That the situation in any event was capable of review in February 1986 if it was thought that the increase was unsatisfactory, and that if the position was unsatisfactory, bearing in mind the ages of the residents, the numbers would be reduced to 9 in a short space of time and not 4 years as estimated by the Authority.
We note paragraph 11 of the Statement of reasons for the Authority's decision. We accept that one of the difficulties was the 1984 Act coming into force in January 1985 when negotiations were in progress. We do not think that our decision 'should set guidelines for future cases should they arise'. we want to make it quite clear that we are considering the facts of each particular case, in this case The Bell House. We are however of the opinion that it is to be regretted that this case had to come to the Tribunal at all. With the safeguards the Authority has, we feel the refusal was misguided, and we certainly do not intend to 'establish a baseline for considering the question of location as an aspect of registration in this case'.
It seems to the Tribunal to come to this. If people want to live in a rural setting why shouldn't they? There is the demand and it is their choice. If they are happy, well cared for in a good environment what harm comes from the increase. If it proves detrimental to the residents because it affects the relationship between staff and the residents, the Authority have their powers, but at least Mr Gresty should be given the opportunity of showing that he can succeed, and the refusal denied him the chance.
(Signed) HIS HONOUR JUDGE B H GERRARD
MARGARET O WOODIER
28 July 1985 G S DUNN