Eagle Care Services Limited v Care Quality Commission

The Appellant company has appealed (“the Appeal”) a decision by the Respondent (“The Decision”) dated 17^th July 2025 to cancel the Appellant’s registration as a regulated service provider in respect of the regulated activity of personal care on the grounds that the company has been dormant and not actively functioning for a period exceeding 12 months.

The Appellant did not attend the hearing.

Miss Amy Tayor of counsel represented the Respondent.

Also present at the hearing were Miss Carty, solicitor representing the Respondent, Miss Khatun, paralegal for the Respondent, Mr Andreas Schwarz, Operations Manager for the Respondent.

Present as an observer was Miss Street, solicitor.

The Appellant had at 9.19 sent an email to the Tribunal requesting the hearing commence at 12 noon as she had an urgent emergency meeting to attend between 10 – 11.00 am. In the alternative a Mr. Singh, who had drafted the email give evidence on her behalf.

The panel accepted submissions on the two points and decided that the hearing had been listed in November. No details were given about the emergency meeting. Mr. Singh could not give evidence as he had not submitted a witness statement and could not speak to the witness statement of the Appellant.

No application had been made by the Appellant to hear the case on papers.

The tribunal proceeded to hear the case in the absence of the Appellant under rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Health and Social Care Chambers) Rules 2008.

The Appellant was fully aware of the hearing as identified at the last case management hearing in February and by sending the email to the Tribunal. It was in the interests of justice to proceed given the hearing had been listed in November and was the subject of a recent case management hearing in February when the Appellant confirmed that the case was ready for hearing. Also confirmed at that hearing was the fact that the Appellant had not been carrying on any form of Regulated Activity.

The Appellant had not sought to adduce any other evidence at the hearing in February, nor had any indication been given by her that there were any other witnesses other than herself.

The Appellant was first registered on 30 November 2020 to provide the Regulated Activity.

The Notice of Proposal sets out a chronology of contact between the parties in relation to the carrying on, or absence of carrying on, of the Regulated Activity.

Based on that contact, as of 11 February 2025, the Respondent understood that the Appellant had not carried on the Regulated Activity since it was first registered, constituting a continuous period of more than twelve months. On that basis, the Notice of Proposal to cancel the Appellant’s registration based on dormancy was served dated the 16 June 2025.

The Appellant made representations to the Notice of Proposal, which were received by the Respondent on 15 July 2025. The independent National Representations Team reviewed those representations. The Notice of Decision dated 17 July 2025, which adopted the Notice of Proposal, was issued accordingly.

By letter dated 17^th July 2025 the Respondent served notice under Section 28(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to cancel the Appellant’s registration as a service provider- pursuant to Section 17(1) (e) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and Regulation 6 (1) (c) of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 because the Appellant had not been and was not carrying on the regulated activity of “ personal care” for a continuous period of 12 months or more.

The Appellant company had been dormant for over two years such that the Respondent was unable to carry out inspections or seek assurance that the Appellant was meeting the requirements of the Regulations and operating a safe service. The Appellant accepted that the Regulated Activity had not been delivered since the 12^th June 2023.

The Appellant contends that extenuating circumstances prevented them from carrying on the Regulated Activity, including the need to relocate their premises due to termination of the lease. This combined with operational issues meant they were unable to provide the Regulated Services.

However, the Appellant submits that they are now ready to commence providing the Regulated Services and as such the registration should not be cancelled.

The Respondent was established on 1 April 2009 by the HSCA 2008. The Respondent is the independent regulator of health and social care services in England. The Respondent, in its role as the independent regulator, also protects the interests of vulnerable people, including those whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended by the 2007 Act).

The HSCA 2008 requires all providers of regulated activities in England to register with the Respondent, and to comply with the requirements and fundamental standards set out in regulations made under the HSCA 2008.

Section 3 of the HSCA 2008 sets out the Respondent’s main objective which is “to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of people who use health and social care services”.

Regulation 6(1)(c) of the 2009 Regulations permits the Respondent to cancel a service provider’s registration if the service provider has not carried on the regulated activity it is registered to provide for a continuous period of 12 months.

Section 17(1)(e) of the HSCA 2008, allows the Respondent to cancel a provider’s registration as a service provider “on any ground specified by regulations”.

The Appellant is registered for the regulated activity of Personal care. The definition of this activity is to be found in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (“the 2014 Regulations”):

Section 32(3) of the HSCA 2008 provides that on an appeal against a decision, the First Tier Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it is not to have effect.

Section 32(6) HSCA 2008 provides that the First Tier Tribunal also has power to:

The Tribunal may confirm the decision(s) taken by the Respondent or direct that the decision(s) not have effect, or it may impose any condition(s) on the registration that it sees fit.

The Appellant’s evidence is that she became a director of the Limited Company on the 20^{th of} March 2022. She was not the sole director but was responsible for reviewing the systems, governance arrangements, policies, and operational structure.

On the 1^{st of} May 2023, the other director resigned unexpectedly, leaving her as the sole responsible figure for the company.

During this period, the company was required to relocate its business address, and the care manager also left the company.

The period of inactivity which is accepted by the Appellant was due to circumstances outside the control of the current administration as they had to complete remedial work including.

To cancel the registration at this stage would be disproportionate as whilst the company could apply for another registration this would cause an additional delay of at least 6 months, which would cause a serious loss of revenue, resources and provision of services.

The evidence on behalf of the Respondent consisted of a witness statement from Andreas Schwarz. He has been employed in health and social care for 29 years and worked both as an Inspector since December 2004 and Operations Manager since September 2023.

He accepted that a provider would be dormant after first registration. If a service provider has been dormant for a period over 12 months this would cause staff to review the contact with the provider to check whether any regulated activity had been carried on. If not, an Operations Manager would be notified and consideration would be given as to whether to begin the process for cancellation of registration.

On enquiry the Appellant accepted that they had not yet commenced regulated activity in March 2024 and February 2025. Following a review of the evidence the Respondent decided to issue a Notice of Proposal to cancel registration.

The Notice of Decision was issued on the 17^{th of} July 2025 after representations from the Appellant.

The CQC did not accept that the matters the Appellant claimed she had to complete would take a period of some 2 years, further this would not prevent the Appellant from providing the regulated activity since it was provided in the service user’s homes.

The rationale for the decision is that CQC are unable to assess their capacity to provide safe care if the company is dormant. The register is intended to include providers that are currently carrying on the regulated activity.

It was not disproportionate to cancel the registration as the Appellant could apply to be re-registered and if it did so the cancellation of personal care based on dormancy would not be held against them.

In this case there was still no evidence that the Appellant is or imminently would be carrying out the Regulated Activity.

Mr. Schwarz in oral evidence confirmed that if a new application were made it would be considered within 3 months of receipt.

His main concern was that the list provided the public with confirmation as to regulated services which had been assessed and deemed as safe. That was the purpose of the registration. The company could not be assessed as they were unable to assess any quality of care if none of the regulated activity was carried out. Further they could not speak to service users or their relatives to check. As such the CQC was failing in its duties to protect the service users.

The burden of proof lies with the Respondent. It is the civil standard which must be applied, that is the balance of probabilities. We also accept that the evidence of the Appellant is untested unlike the oral evidence of the Respondent and we attach the appropriate weight to both.

The parties have submitted a Scott Schedule, which we have attached to this Decision, adopting that numbering we find as follows.

Whilst the Appellant sets out that the fault for not providing services was due to numerous inherited defaults within the administration which she immediately started fixing, she fails to understand that whilst these numerous defaults were in place she was still registered as a service provider to provide “Regulated Activities”. It is accepted as set out by Mr. Schwarz that a member of the public would be led to believe that the service provider was safe, when clearly even on the Appellant’s own evidence it was not. By allowing the Appellant company to remain on the list when the Appellant accepts that the company was not in a position to deliver safe services clearly evidences the risks that were identified by the Respondent that might happen if dormant companies were retained on the register.

There is no prejudice to the Appellant in cancelling the registration as unlike cancellation due to other reasons, dormancy would not affect any future application. We accept that the application could be considered within a three-month timescale and therefore it is not disproportionate for the registration to be cancelled.

Whilst we accept that the Appellant appears to have undertaken extensive measure to enable the company to provide the necessary services it is only when those services are assessed that the Respondent can maintain their duty to protect the public and service users.

The Respondent, given the length of time the Appellant company has been dormant has been more than reasonable in extending the time significantly to allow the Appellant to comply.

The Appeal is dismissed.

CQC Enforcement decision tree guidance and CQC Enforcement Policy guidance