BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Verney-Jackson v OFSTED [2002] EWCST 89(EY) (29 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2003/89(EY).html
Cite as: [2002] EWCST 89(EY)
[New search] [Help]

Verney-Jackson v OFSTED [2002] EWCST 89(EY) (29 January 2003)

Elizabeth Verney-Jackson v OFSTED
2002.89.EY
Thursday 12th December 2002

Maureen Roberts (Chair)
Geraldine Matthison
Kenneth Coleman

DECISION

    APPLICATION

  1. Elizabeth Verney-Jackson (‘the Applicant’) appeals under the Children Act 1989 Section 79M against the decision of the Office for Standards and Education (‘Ofsted’) made on the 7th August 2002 and communicated to the Applicant by a letter dated the 14th August 2002. The decision of Ofsted being to uphold a Notice of Intention issued on the 5th July 2002, refusing an application by the Applicant to register her as a Sessional Day Care Provider.

    2. PRELIMINARY

  2. The Applicant requested the Tribunal, pursuant to Regulation 7 (1) of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002, to determine her application without a hearing. Accordingly the case was dealt with on the basis of the papers submitted to the Tribunal by the parties.
  3. On an application by the Respondent under Regulation 15 of the Tribunal rules it was ordered that certain additional information from the Applicant’s former GP be considered by the Tribunal but not disclosed to the Applicant.

    4. FACTS

    The material facts found by the Tribunal were as follows

  4. The Applicant was a registered day care provider from 24th June 1993 to the 23rd May 2000, at the premises Home Farm Nursery, Sandy Lane Blackborough End King’s Lynn. This was for a maximum of 20 children aged 3-5. It was stated, by the Respondent, that there were some concerns in the areas of record keeping and safety but no formal steps were taken until the registration authority received a complaint on 3rd April 2000. The complainant said the Applicant appeared to be suffering from some form of nervous breakdown, had recently spent some time in a local psychiatric hospital and that there were insufficient staff in the nursery.

  5. The complaint was investigated and the Applicant’s registration was cancelled by West Norfolk Family proceedings Court on the 23rd May 2000, on the grounds that children in her care were suffering or were likely to suffer significant harm. We accept that she was obstructive during the investigation.

  6. On the 7th March 2002 the Applicant applied to Ofsted to be a day care provider at the same premises now known as Middleton Modern Montessori at Home Farm, Sandy Lane Blackborough End Middleton Kings Lynn. In her Health Declaration she did not declare that she had suffered from ‘depression, nervous or other similar illness’. This declaration was not true and she had a dispute with her GP when he informed her that her admission to a psychiatric hospital in February 2000 should be disclosed. The Applicant was referred to the Medical Adviser for Ofsted who stated ‘ I advise refusing registration for this application on medical grounds. These grounds are failure to disclose significant relevant information’. We also noted that in the substantive application she failed to disclose that she had ‘had registration as a childminder or as a provider of day care ‘ cancelled.

  7. In response to the application Ofsted Child Care inspectors visited the premises on 17th June 2002. We saw their inspection report which covers each of the 14 standards as set out by the ‘National Standards for under eights day care and childminding’. They concluded that the Applicant was not a suitable person to provide sessional day care as she displayed a lack of understanding of children’s needs, particularly with regard to food and drink and medication. She was confused about the issue of insurance cover and the status of the Norfolk County Council guidance. The Applicant did not have any written procedures for recruitment, registration systems, and medication administration. She did not have an equality of opportunity policy or an operational plan for the service, which she proposed to provide. The premises were a hazard to children in that the garden was overgrown and fencing and the gate were in poor repair.

  8. The Applicant appealed against this decision and an Ofsted objection Panel heard the application on the 7th August. The panel examined each of the 14 Standards and heard the Applicant’s submissions on each one. On the 14th August 2002 it notified the Applicant that the intention to refuse would stand.

  9. It was also alleged that the Applicant had advertised childcare services to commence in September 2002 at the premises Middleton Modern Montessori at Home Farm.

    TRIBUNAL CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS

    We carefully considered all of the papers submitted in this case

    The Tribunal’s reasons are as follows:

  10. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal in this case is whether to confirm the decision of Ofsted to refuse registration or allow the application and grant the Applicant registration.

  11. The day Care and Child minding (National Care Standards) regulations 2001 state at paragraph 3 (2) that:

    ‘a registered person who acts as a childminder, or provides day care on premises shall-

    1. meet the requirements of the National standards; and
    2. have regard to the supporting criteria applicable to the child care category into which he falls


    The ‘National Standards for under Eights, day Care and Childminding’ Sessional Care publication states in its introduction that the standards ‘represent a base line of quality below which no provider may fall. There are 14 standards which the childminder is required to meet. Standard 1 dealing with suitable person states ‘The registered person complies with all the conditions of registration’. There are also provisions for organisation and record keeping.

  12. (a) We note that the Applicant has been in childcare since the early 1980s and ran the Home Farm Nursery from 1993 until cancellation in 2000. We find that her registration was cancelled in May 2000 and, the Applicant has, not addressed the issues arising from that cancellation.

    (b) She has made misleading statements about her business, purporting to be offering childcare when she is not registered. She has not been straight forward in her dealings with the registration authority.

    (c) The Applicant failed to declare her illness in February 2000. We wish to make it clear that any issue of mental illness does not determine this decision. We had no detailed information about the nature of the illness in February 2000 (eg medical report or psychiatric report).

    (d) The failure to declare the period of hospitalization together with the previous cancellation and findings on inspection and upheld at the objections hearing lead to our conclusion that the Applicant fails to meet the standard of being a suitable person to be registered to provide sessional day care, and our decision to dismiss this application.

The decision of the Tribunal is to confirm the decision of OFSTED not to register the Applicant for sessional day care.

The decision of the Tribunal was unanimous.

MAUREEN ROBERTS
GERALDINE MATTHISON
KENNETH COLEMAN

Decision amended on review.

Dated this 29th day of January 2003

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010