Guardian Homes (Midlands) Ltd v Ofsted

This is an appeal by Guardian Homes (Midlands) Ltd (the Appellant) against a decision of Ofsted (the Respondent) to suspend its registration of a children’s home (the Home) at a location address which is known to the Tribunal and the parties.

On 19 September 2025, the Respondent sent the Appellant a decision letter in which it indicated that it issued a suspension notice for the registration of the Home. The suspension took effect immediately and lasts for 12 weeks. It is due to expire on 12 December 2025.

The suspension was made under sections 14A and 20B of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the Act), and pursuant to The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 and the Social Care Enforcement Policy, issued by the Respondent.

This was a remote video hearing. Neither party raised an objection to the form of hearing. The Tribunal determined that the type of hearing was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective at Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules (2008) and considered the requirements of Rule 27. There were no significant connectivity issues for either party or their witnesses.

The Appellant is a registered Children’s Home provider with the Respondent. The Home, which is the concern of this appeal, was first registered on 26 July 2024 to provide care and accommodation for up to three children with social and emotional difficulties. The Respondent conducted an inspection of the Home on 29 October 2024, based upon two complaints raised with it on 14 and 22 October 2024 by staff members at the Home, raising concerns about leadership, management and the care of children at the Home.

At that stage, the registered manager (RM) was Ms Paula Dancaster and the responsible individual (RI) was Mr Gurpreet Klair, Mrs Klair’s husband. There were concerns arising from the inspection, including a concern about children being at risk of or experiencing significant harm. The concerns included a child leaving the home without authorisation on 26 October 2024. Staff failed to follow plans which were in place to protect the child and failed to report the incident to the police. The child later disclosed that, during the period of unauthorised leave from the Home, they were raped.

Further issues were identified by the inspectors, which included planning and risk assessment for the children’s needs and care, a lack of professional curiosity from staff and poor responses to self-harm incidents. As an example, on 28 October 2025, a child was reported as missing to the police and upon the attendance of the police, they searched the child’s bedroom and found a letter from the child in which they expressed suicidal ideation and a razor blade. This was following an incident on 27 October 2024 in which the child threatened a staff member with a razor. No staff member had searched the child’s bedroom before the attendance of the police. There were a number of issues relating to the lack of direction for staff, insufficient training to manage the level of risk, a lack of effective management oversight of incidents, records and assurance through audits.

As to the environment, the Home was deemed not safe as fire exits were locked, fire extinguishers were locked away, a window restrictor in a child’s bedroom was broken and the fire risk assessment had not been updated to reflect the risk of one child fire-setting. Medication, which included controlled drugs prescribed for one child, was stored in a cabinet in the communal area of the Home, with a poor-quality lock on it.

One child had attended one hour of education since living in the Home from 1 October 2024 to 29 October 2024. There were no records of education meetings for the child.

A suspension notice was issued on 30 October 2024, which was extended until 16 September 2025.

On 12 November 2024, the Respondent issued a proposal to cancel the registration of the Home. On 9 December 2024, the Appellant sent written representations and an update that the RI and RM were no longer in role. The proposed new RI and RM were assessed by the Respondent and deemed not suitable. The proposed new RM and RI were deemed not suitable on 18 June 2025 and 2 June 2025 respectively, due to concerns about their integrity.

On 6 June 2025, Mrs Klair sent the Respondent an application to be the new RI for the Home. On 18 September 2025, the Respondent notified Mrs Klair of its decision – that she was not suitable to be the RI.

On 18 June 2025, the Respondent issued a notice of a decision to cancel the registration of the Home.

On 28 August 2025, the Respondent received an application to register Ms Kerry Dowell as the registered manager of the Home.

On 11 September 2025, the Respondent conducted a monitoring visit, and it identified that the premises were not safe for children to live in as refurbishment were ongoing and the areas were hazardous. Actions from audits were reviewed and were not yet complete, the whistleblowing policy was not suitable, and concerns were raised about Mrs Klair’s suitability to be registered as the RI.

On 18 September 2025, Mrs Klair contacted the Respondent to ask about the status of the Home, having noted the date of expiry for the suspension was 16 September 2025. On 19 September 2025, the Respondent sent Mrs Klair its decision to suspend the registration of the Home until 12 December 2025.

On 20 October 2025, the Appellant sent the Tribunal and the Respondent its application to appeal the decision of 19 September 2025 to the First-tier Tribunal.

Ofsted is the body responsible for regulating children’s homes. Its powers and duties are set out in the Care Standards Act 2000 (the Act) and The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations).

The power to suspend the registration of a provider of a children’s home is provided for at section 14A of the Act.

At section 20B of the Act, where Ofsted has reasonable cause to believe that unless it suspends a provider’s registration a person will or may be exposed to risk of harm, it may use the urgent procedure for suspension. The urgent procedure allows the suspension to come into effect from the point at which notice is given by Ofsted as to the decision to suspend.

‘Harm’ is defined at section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989: ‘ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another’.

It is not necessary for the Tribunal to be satisfied that there has been actual harm or even a likelihood of harm, but merely that a child may be exposed to a risk of harm as at the date of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal.

At section 21 of the Act, an appeal may be brought to the First-tier Tribunal and on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall cease to have effect.

Suspension may be lifted at any time if the circumstances described at section 20B of the Act cease to exist. This imposes an ongoing duty on the Respondent to monitor whether the suspension remains necessary and proportionate.

The Tribunal stands in the shows of Ofsted at the date of the hearing. The first issue to be addressed by the Tribunal is whether, as at the date of the hearing, the Tribunal has reasonable cause to believe that the continued provision of a children's home by the Appellant to any child may expose such a child to risk of harm (the threshold test). If it concludes that it does, it must consider whether suspension is a necessary and proportionate response.

The burden of satisfying the Tribunal that the threshold test at section 20B of the Act is met rests with the Respondent. The standard of proof is ‘reasonable cause to believe’ and that falls somewhere between the balance of probabilities test and the ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ test. The belief is to be judged by whether a reasonable person, assumed to know the law and possessed of the information would believe that a child may be exposed to a risk of harm.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal made an order pursuant to Rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008. This means that the Tribunal’s decision will not make any reference to the name of the Home or any other information which may make it possible to identify any children.

The Tribunal had the benefit of skeleton arguments from both parties. The Respondent’s position is that Appellant has not taken sufficient remedial steps to ensure that the level of risk of harm to children is reduced to a level that means suspension is no longer a necessary and proportionate response.

The Respondent has deemed Mrs Klair to be unsuitable for registration as the RI and has been unable to assess the suitability of Ms Dowell, the proposed RM, as she had failed to provide suitable references as part of the assurance checks the Respondent carries out with applications of that kind. The Respondent considers that there is a risk of harm to children caused by the fact that the Appellant does not have a suitable RI or RM and does not have any staff in place.

The Appellant asks the Tribunal to direct that the suspension order shall cease to have effect. The Appellant submits that a proportionate response from the Respondent would be to impose a restriction of accommodation notice, which would limit the number of children who can be accommodated at the Home and limit it to none at the present time. The Appellant argues that this is a proportionate, alternative response, which would allow it to recruit appropriately experienced staff.

Furthermore, the Appellant had submitted that the remediation required by the Respondent has now been completed and so the risks identified by the Respondent are historic.

During the hearing, Mrs Klair accepted that there were still issues which required attention and work, in that she reflected on the oral evidence form Ms Norcop and conceded the Home is not in compliance. Mrs Klair also conceded that there are ongoing safety concerns for children accommodated at the Home. However, Mrs Klair remained clear in her position that the proportionate response, at this stage, is for the Tribunal to direct that the suspension ceases to have effect. It would then be a matter for the Respondent, at some future date, to impose a restriction on accommodation, with which the Appellant would comply.

We carefully considered all of the evidence in the appeal. This included the hearing bundle of 586 digital pages.

The Tribunal also took into account the parties’ helpful skeleton arguments.

We gave Mrs Klair additional time, by way of a break, to prepare questions for Ms Norcop and Mr Matkar-Cox. This was particularly important after Ms Norcop’s oral evidence, as she dealt with the updated position, which was necessarily not covered in her signed witness statement, dated 24 October 2025.

Firstly, the Tribunal found all three witnesses gave considered and balanced oral evidence, reflecting realistic positions. Mrs Klair understood that there are still shortfalls in the documentation sent by her in support of the appeal and indicated that she would resolve the issues. Furthermore, she accepted that there remained safety concerns in relation to children being accommodated at the Home. As she made clear, in her appeal application, Mrs Klair does not consider that the Home is ready to accommodate children. Her position is that in order for the Home to present itself as an attractive employment option for people with the appropriate level of experience, it would be easier to do so if the Home did not have its registration suspended. For Mrs Klair, this would then allow the Home to fully assure the Respondent of its ability to deliver safe and effective care to children. In the Tribunal’s view, this was a realistic approach which demonstrated that Mrs Klair has taken time to reflect on the failures of the Home and the importance of full remediation to assure the Respondent.

The Tribunal also understood Mrs Klair’s position that it is quite difficult to work constructively and to ensure that all issues have been remediated if the new leaders and managers are ‘painted with the brush of old leaders and managers’. However, the Tribunal, in stepping into the shoes of the Chief Inspector, cannot compartmentalise the past issues, in its assessment of risk, on the basis that there was a different leadership team in place. In practical terms, the suspension attaches to the registration of the Home. Therefore, the past history of compliance and past, very serious allegations of failures in care towards highly vulnerable children, remain relevant, even if there has been a change in leadership. The legal statutory threshold is that of reasonable cause to believe children (in this case) may be exposed to risk of harm. It is a relatively low threshold, in that the Tribunal is not required to make findings of fact and it is not required to establish that there is an actual risk of harm, merely that there it is reasonable, on the evidence, to conclude that a child may be vulnerable to ill treatment and/or witnessing the ill treatment of another.

Ms Norcop had taken the time to review the documents submitted by Mrs Klair, which included updated policies and procedures. She continued to have concerns about clear lines of escalation in the Home, citing the specific example of the lack of clear information on escalation if concerns were raised about the RI. Ms Norcop acknowledged that Mrs Klair has made progress with the home environment and with the documentation and processes in place to ensure effective management of the Home. As of the day before the hearing, Ms Norcop had received referees to contact for Ms Dowell, which meant she would now arrange the fit and proper person interview with Ms Dowell. Ms Norcop estimated that the interview could take place within the next two weeks, as the case is being prioritised. The key issue for Ms Norcop was that the documentation was not at the standard she would expect to ensure safe and effective delivery of care to children. Notably, from the Tribunal’s perspective, was the fact that the safeguarding policy refers to outdated guidance, which undermines the integrity of the policy. In the circumstances, where safeguarding failed at the Home, this did not assure the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the positive development of Ms Dowell’s application being able to move forward. The difficulty is that at the moment, the Home does not have a RM or a RI in place. It was also positive to note that Mrs Klair can apply again for consideration as the RI of the Home, once there has been a change in circumstances. Ms Norcop indicated that this would be acceptable, but she could not guarantee that the Respondent would approve Mrs Klair as a RI. In the Tribunal’s view, it was highly relevant to the assessment of risk, the fact that the Home does not have a RM or a RI in place and Mrs Klair has been deemed unsuitable due to lacking the level of experience and knowledge to operate effectively in the role. This is because the Home is not able to operate safely and effectively without a robust, approved leadership team, given its recent history, in which it has not accommodated children for just over one year. This is even more significant because the previous leadership team, in place at the point when children were last accommodated, oversaw alleged serious failures in care. The Tribunal also considered it highly relevant that the Home’s previous proposed leadership team of RI and RM, before Mrs Klair and Ms Dowell, were not approved by Ofsted due to concerns about integrity and openness. This is concerning, given the oral evidence from Ms Norcop. She pointed to the lack of clarity around escalation and reporting of concerns in the updated policies from Mrs Klair. Ms Norcop was concerned that this lack of clarity may discourage the proper escalation of issues, including safeguarding of children. In order to ensure the effective implementation and understanding of policies and procedures, there is an absolute requirement to have a robust, experienced and approved leadership team in place. At the present time, this is lacking and it does not provide the assurance the Tribunal would need to have in order to conclude that the threshold of risk is not met, as at the date of the hearing.

The Tribunal noted that even on her own account, Mrs Klair is still developing the knowledge and competency to fulfil the role of RI. This much was clear from Mrs Klair’s repeated submission that the leadership team is still in its infancy and that she has an external consultant/mentor in place to support her. This accords with Ms Norcop’s current view, that Mrs Klair is still developing the competency needed to be able to effectively perform the role of RI. It was positive to know that Mrs Klair wishes to reflect on the feedback and develop her skills and knowledge further to potentially apply again. Mrs Klair’s commitment to improvement is positive and, in the Tribunal’s view, genuine and focused. She took over as the director of the company in November 2024, took on the acting RI role in June 2025 and recruited Ms Dowell to manager in August 2025. The improvements made to the Home environment and to the systems and processes were acknowledged by the Respondent. The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence Mrs Klair provided on the improvements. However, in the Tribunal’s view, in order to progress and embed the changes, there is a clear requirement to have an effective leadership team in place. This is equally applicable to the assessment of risk.

The Tribunal concluded that there is sufficient evidence to lead it to reasonably believe that children may be exposed to a risk of harm at the date of the hearing.

Having concluded that the suspension threshold had been met by the evidence presented by the Respondent, we next considered the proportionality of the suspension.

We have taken into account that suspension is a draconian act which has a significant impact on the viability of the Home. We have also carefully considered the alternative action which Mrs Klair would like the Respondent to take. The Tribunal cannot, as part of this appeal, impose a restriction on accommodation at the Home. The Tribunal either confirms the suspension or directs that it shall cease to have effect.

The Tribunal understood the point from Mrs Klair that it would make the Home more attractive to appropriate candidates if the suspension was no longer in place in relation to the Home’s registration, as the appropriate candidates may perceive employment at the Home as more secure. The Tribunal carefully weighed the alternative option, proposed by Mrs Klair, in the proportionality assessment. It also considered the Respondent's position on this – that such an action would be tantamount to suspension and a restriction is only used when a child or children remain living at a children’s home and risk has been identified only in relation to a specific child. In effect, when risk can be confined to one child and the risk is minimised by the child no longer residing at the home in question or by the placing of no new children at the home. We considered it relevant to our assessment of proportionality the fact that Mrs Klair has no plans to actually received children into the Home for accommodation until such a time as the Home has appropriate staff in place, which starts with an approved RM and RI.

We did not consider it adequate, in the circumstances, to direct that the suspension should cease to have effect. In the end, for the Tribunal, the risk of harm to children, if the suspension was no longer in place, is too great at the present time. In a context where the Home does not have an approved RM or RI and there are still concerns with the procedures and policies in place, this does not provide the assurance required to mean that the interests of the Home/the Appellant outweigh the level of ongoing risk. The are still significant deficits in governance and leadership at the Home and in light of its recent history, the deficits require further remediation before the Home will be in a position to return to unrestricted registration.

As part of the proportionality assessment, the Tribunal took into account the duty of the Respondent to keep the suspension under review, the time limited nature of it and the indication from Mr Matkar-Cox that if the Respondent approves Ms Dowell’s RM application, it will review the suspension, as that would constitute a material change. That is certainly the view of this Tribunal.

At this stage, we have concluded that the suspension remains necessary and proportionate.