APPEALS: [2009] 1555EA and 1556EA
IN THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CARE
CARE STANDARDS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:-
Mr SHAID SHEIK
First Appellant
SN CARE LLP (PRIMROSE RESIDENTIAL) HOME
Second Appellant
and
CARE QUALITY COMMISION
Respondent
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the hearing beginning on 18 January 2010 with an application by the Appellants to dismiss the proceedings. The application was made on the basis that to continue the hearing would be a breach of natural justice as legal aid was not available and that no fair hearing could take place. Additional matters complained of were the loss of income of residents from the Care Home and that the Appellant had purchased a Home funded by a loan resulting in his financial hardship as the residents had been moved to other accommodation by the relevant authority. The application was refused as it was not supported by law or evidence.
2. A further complaint was that a witness for the Respondent, Ms Vera Bulbeck a Regulation Inspector, had submitted two witness statements concerning matters of significance and relevance in these proceedings. A letter from Ms Bulbeck’s doctor (Dr Arnold) was provided in which he states that the witness is suffering from anxiety as a result of her professional dealings with the Appellant, she was having ongoing treatment with medication and remains unable to work. The opinion of Dr Arnold was that the giving of evidence by the witness would be detrimental to her mental state and her ongoing recovery. This situation was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (dated 19 January 2010) and so that the witness’s evidence was allowed to be admitted.
3. Mr Sheikh was given notice by the CQC’s proposal on 16 February 2009 to cancel his registration as provider of Primrose Care Home
4. An application was also made by the Appellant to dismiss the proceedings on the basis that it was not a fair trial as the residents would have to be assisted; it was refused as being without merit. In giving their evidence and as legal aid was not available and that as the loss of patients is total, the application was refused as considered unnecessary and unjust.
5. The second Care Home “Shanty” was purchased by the first Appellant and a loan resulting in financial hardship on the part of the Appellant. In respect to a previous inspection it was said that he wanted other witnesses and that it would be an abuse of process except no previous request had been made and the disclosure provided amounted to 483 pages. A further application was made for documents relating to the first Care Home which provides for those with Learning Difficulties. It was made and an unannounced Inspection took place and it was said by the Appellant that staff were same or similar. Further documentation was provided to the Appellant.
6. At the conclusion of the hearing of the oral evidence from both parties in this appeal we were provided with closing submissions of the Care Quality Commission on behalf of the Respondent
Written submissions set out for the first Appellant
7. At the end of the oral evidence both of the parties submitted written closing submissions. It was said of the first Appellant Mr Sheikh, that he failed to manage Primrose in accordance with the CSA and Care Homes Regulations:
8. Evidence from the Inspections shows gross inadequacies especially in management, poor working and care practice as evidenced from family concerns (letters), Inappropriate qualification. A “lip service” approach compounded by an attitude which fails to take seriously recommendations and regulations which impact directly on the service user. Reduced carer/client ratio: use of foreign personnel with unrecognised nursing qualifications. All equals a singular fail to recognise “special needs” of the client. Shown in poor “care plans”; failure to appreciate marked differences between the client groups (SLD younger v mild dementia-older) in respect of activity and therapeutic needs, inappropriate cover, poor ownership of policies; poor communication; overall poor management.
Appellant’s Poor Attitude
9. Mr S is capable of using his presence and overbearing manner to influence /cajole situations. His passion is more negative in so much that he could not relate appropriately to skilled professionals. There may be “personality” difficulties but we are dealing with many who were affronted by his manner. The big concern and a very real one is how he relates to vulnerable people. His attitude is not likely to moderate; he is not a person to listen appropriately and take advice unless it is in his own best interest (unjustified delay in co-operating with the reassessment of clients whose care needs had progressed to nursing level).
10. Failure to meet requirements of Regulations 9 and 10
Not a man of integrity; gave answers designed to meet what he felt the Tribunal wanted to hear, asked on at least 3 occasions not to interfere with the process. Failure to appreciate needs of dementia- activity base;; ratio of cover; inappropriate restraint. Poor leadership priorities; questionable qualifications i.e .Incomplete NVQ.
Breach of Regulation 13
Many examples quoted: most serious on medication; use of marigold gloves which collectively indicate a poor understanding of client needs and exposing such to risk.
11. Closing submissions on the behalf of the Respondent
The Appellants decision in this matter has been to appeal against the decision of the Quality Commission (CQC) to cancel the registration of both the Registered Manager and Registered Provider, pursuant to s.21 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the Act).
12. The documentation in the Responding submissions sets out a comprehensive and overwhelming resistance to the Appellant’s appeal.
13. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities and is on the Respondent, all probative evidence having been taken into account.
14. The appeal is refused.
A Wadling (nominated Tribunal Judge)
Raymond Winn, John Hutchison