Challenging Cancellation, Suspension or Variation of Conditions

Our Client, a provider of multiple residential dementia care services, had submitted its own representations to a Notice of Proposal issued by the CQC to remove one of its homes as a location on its overall registration. In essence, this was a notice to close the home.

Unfortunately, the provider’s own representations had been rejected by the CQC and they were issued with a Notice of Decision, confirming the CQC’s proposal.

In such a situation a provider is given the opportunity to submit an appeal to the First Tier (Care Standards) Tribunal within 28 days of the date that the decision is made. At that point Ridouts were engaged and we prepared and submitted our Client’s appeal at the Tribunal. The case focussed on the validity of the original Notice of Proposal, the legal basis of CQC’s proposed action and the position of the service at the time the appeal was lodged.

Ridouts engaged in telephone case management hearings with the judge presiding over the case, prepared witness statements and bundles of evidence in advance of the hearing and managed the provider’s expectations throughout. The case prepared was so compelling that before the date of the hearing arrived, the CQC agreed to withdraw its opposition to the appeal on the basis that they had been “reassured” that the provider had made necessary improvements.

Most providers have never been party to any kind of legal proceedings, let alone one that could potentially close their business. Good advice and a proactive approach is essential.

Our Client contacted us with a Notice of Proposal to cancel its registration that had been issued by the CQC.

When a provider is issued with such a notice they are given 28 days, from the date that the notice is received, to respond. Unfortunately this Client had not been proactive in seeking legal advice and so contacted Ridouts with just 5 days to go.

We were able to arrange an urgent meeting with the Client, take instructions and start to gather detailed evidence to contest the Notice. Our work involved a forensic review of the Notice in order to determine whether or not what the CQC had attempted to rely upon on as evidence was indeed correct. In this particular case the circumstances were not only erroneously reported by the CQC but they were no longer relevant as improvements had been made since the time that the CQC gathered its evidence.

We were able to refer to relevant case law to persuade that the Notice was inherently flawed as the evidence it contained was unreliable and out of date. The CQC withdrew the Notice, allowing the provider to continue running its business as normal.

We advised a Children’s Home provider in relation to an appeal to the First-tier (Care Standards) Tribunal against Ofsted enforcement action which placed a restriction of accommodation on one of their services under section 22B of the Care Standards Act 2000.

This meant that the provider was prevented from admitting any children to the home for three months. The appeal followed the Tribunal’s expedited appeals process which meant that any appeal would be fast tracked and we had to be ready to go to a hearing within approximately 14 days of submitting the appeal. We submitted an appeal arguing that Ofsted’s action was disproportionate and unreasonable and not based on correct factual information.

We put together a robust appeal with evidence of good practice and positive outcomes for children. The appeal prompted Ofsted to enter into negotiations with the provider which resulted in the restriction being lifted and the matter was settled without having to attend a Tribunal hearing.

We acted for a care home provider in a case relating to an urgent imposition of a condition of registration preventing the provider from admitting further service users to its home without the prior written agreement of the CQC.

As this was an urgent section 31 decision, the condition took effect immediately and the appeal followed the expedited appeals process which meant we had to be ready to attend a hearing within two weeks of the appeal being submitted. We prepared and submitted the appeal to the First-Tier (Care Standards) Tribunal on behalf of the provider and acted for them throughout the appeal process.

At the Tribunal hearing, the panel accepted our submissions relating to the current position at the home and noted that CQC had not been in to reinspect the home prior to the hearing. This meant the CQC were not in a position to comment on the current position of the home (the test applied by the First-Tier Tribunal in such cases) and this gave our submissions more weight as they related to more up to date matters.

The Tribunal decided in favour of the provider and allowed the appeal noting that the CQC’s evidence presented to the Tribunal did not support a conclusion that ‘a person will or may be exposed to the risk of harm’ sufficient to justify the condition (this being the test for the imposition of a condition under section 31). In parallel, CQC had also issued a Notice of Proposal to cancel the provider’s registration based on the same reasons provided for the urgent action. As a result of the Tribunal appeal and decision, the CQC decided to withdraw its proposal and the provider faced no further enforcement action.

We acted for a well-established provider of Learning Disability services, with a strong track record of providing high quality person-centred care, who sought to add an additional location to its existing registration. They sought to add a separate new 6 bedded unit adjacent to their existing 6 bedded service.

CQC refused the application on the basis that it would not be compliant with the principles of Registering the Right Support. Reasons cited included CQC’s contention that our Client was simply seeking to double the size of its existing service rather than provide a truly independent second service. It was further argued that even if it was an independent service, it’s geographic location and proximity to the existing service would make it a congregate or campus setting.

We assisted our Client in preparing submissions to appeal against that decision to the First Tier (Care Standards) Tribunal. The case was heard over two days, with evidence from the CQC inspectors and our Client.

Having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that it did not consider that CQC had exercised its discretion appropriately and that they had failed to properly evaluate the application. The Tribunal allowed our Client’s appeal and set aside the decision of the CQC to refuse registration. The additional location was registered.