Mr and Mrs Armugam v Sheffield City Council

The Tribunal unanimously allows the appeal and directs that the respondent’s decision to refuse registration shall not have effect.

REASONS

The City Council refused the Armugams’ application for registration because it was satisfied, under section 9(a) of the Act, that they were not fit persons to be concerned in carrying on a residential care home. The City Council came to that conclusion because of an incident that had occurred on 7 October 1988, when an elderly resident was removed by Sheffield social workers from the care of Mr and Mrs Armugam. It should be noted that the Council’s case rested solely upon this one incident and that no other evidence was produced by the licensing authority to support its decision that Mr and Mrs Armugam were not fit to run a registered home.

The papers before the City Council would have made any licensing authority have serious doubts about the suitability of the applicants for registration. The papers indicated that an old man had been found alone in a locked house which was unheated on a cold day; he was almost suffering from hypothermia; he had had no lunch and was apparently left alone for long periods, particularly in the evenings.

During the hearing before the Tribunal it became progressively clearer that this alarming picture was by no means as clear cut as the Council had thought. In some respects it was based upon false information (eg about where the Armugams actually lived) and in others it was seriously lacking (eg there was no medical assessment of the conditions of the client at the centre of the incident in question when he was removed from the Armugams’ care). it was also unfortunate that the most important witness was unavailable (through illness) to give evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the strength of the evidence could not reasonably withstand the heavy weight of the conclusion which the Council drew - that both Mr and Mrs Armugan were "not fit persons" within the meaning of the Act.

Mr and Mrs Armugam are both highly qualified. He is an RGN with a certificate in Education, B Ed (Hons) and MSc in Management Studies. He has been a nurse tutor for over 13 years. She is an RGN and RM with experience as a staff nurse in a hospital geriatric unit and more recent experience as a staff nurse in a hospital midwifery unit. In the latter part of 1987 they decided to run their five bedroomed house as an unregistered home for not more than three elderly people, retaining two bedrooms for themselves. Mrs Armugam gave up her job, they furnished and equipped the house suitably, installed a chair lift and consulted fully with Sheffield’s Department of Social Service. The home was visited by an officer of the DHSS who approved the payment of a residential care allowance for one named George.

During 1988 they took in three residents. After some months one died, then one became a nursing case and had to go elsewhere, so only George was left. George was a 96 year old who had been introduced to the Armugams by an old friend of his named Horace Marriot. Mr Marriot and his nephew visited George every week and took him out. Uncle and nephew both gave evidence before us and were straightforward and obviously truthful witnesses. They spoke highly of the Armugams and their home, and they and George were very satisfied with the care George received.

But unwittingly the Marriots started a train of events that led to the refusal of the Armugams' application to open a new registered home, and to this present appeal. On one occasion when they were visiting George the younger Mr Marriot thought it was a bit cold and lit the gas fire. Later, Mrs Latham, a social worker, spoke to Horace Marriot about George’s welfare, and Horace casually mentioned the occasion when his nephew had turned on the gas fire. The social worker (who was unable through illness to give evidence before us) noted this conversation and it came to the attention of her team manager, Mr Ashby, as a complaint that required investigation. He explained to us that his team was under stress through overwork so he was unable to ensure that this complaint was followed up until 7 October 1988, about three weeks later, when he instructed Ms Latham and Mrs Rowland to visit George. They found him alone and he told them he had had no lunch.

Perhaps he was confused on being woken up in the afternoon, as he and Mrs Armugam had had lunch together not long before. He had then asked Mrs Armugam to go out and buy him some tobacco, which she was reluctant to do until her assistant, Mrs Laylor arrived. By a cruel stroke of fate Mrs Laylor had a domestic problem that day so she telephoned Mrs Armugam to say she would be a bit late. Expecting Mrs Laylor to arrive at any moment, Mrs Armugam yielded to George’s persuasion to go out for his tobacco, and did her household shopping as well. Mrs Laylor’s domestic problem developed into a crisis and she did not arrive, so the social workers found George alone. Ms Latham had picked up from somewhere the entirely false information about the Armugams were not living in the house at the time, and we can only conclude that the alarming situation they found led them unconsciously to a false interpretation of the facts. It is a not uncommon experience that one tends to see what one expects to see, and we are not prepared to accept that the inside of the house was so cold as to present a danger to George, nor that he was close to hypothermia. We accept the evidence that the central heating was programmed to provide heating twice a day - five hours in the morning and five hours in the evening.

We are satisfied, especially from the forthright evidence of the elder and younger Mr Marriot, Mrs Laylor and Mrs Vaughan (whose sister had lived with the Armugams) that the impression of the Armugams gave us was not a false one. They impressed us as a genuinely caring couple who were really fond of George and treated him well. The incident of 7 October 1988 was not the tip of an iceberg of neglect. There was no neglect and it the City Council had known the full facts it would not have come to the conclusion to which it did come.

Mr Haynes, the City Council’s registration officer, made it clear that in all other respects the Armugams’ application for registration was acceptable. He obviously has a good relationship with them and was in no way responsible for the misinterpretation of the events of 7 October 1988. We therefore feel justified in expressing some confidence that there is a basis for a good working relationship between the Armugams as registered home owners and their registration authority. It was dear from the evidence that both the Appellants will need the help and guidance of Mr Haynes’ and his Department. It is noteworthy that Mrs Armugham admitted that she had not read "Home Life" and that Mr Armugam was by no means as clear about the differences between registered and unregistered homes as someone with his background and qualifications should have been. A good working relationship between the home owners and their local authority registrations officers should help to rectify this deficit to the benefit of all concerned.

R H CHRISTIE
J CHURCHILL
D JAMES