Moore & Ors v Care Standards Tribunal & Anor

Whether accommodation is provided in a care home depends on substance, not the legal form of occupation. An establishment may provide accommodation together with nursing or personal care even where residents occupy rooms under leases or assured tenancies. The tenancy may indicate that the establishment does not provide both elements, but it is not decisive. The central question is whether, as a matter of fact, the establishment provides the accommodation together with the nursing or personal care. An establishment may comprise more than one company or organisation acting together.

Residents of eleven houses operated by Alternative Futures Ltd and Alternative Housing Ltd sought judicial review of a decision refusing deregistration as care homes under the Care Standards Act 2000. The residents held assured tenancies and received personal care. The Care Standards Tribunal concluded that the houses were establishments providing accommodation together with personal care. The Administrative Court dismissed the challenge on 15 October 2004.

The appeal concerned whether assured tenancies meant that the residents were cared for in their own homes, so that the accommodation was outside section 3 of the Act. The appellants also relied on the statutory concept of a domiciliary care agency.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the refusal to cancel the registrations and the Tribunal’s decision that the eleven houses were care homes within section 3 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
2. Sir William Aldous held that establishment has no technical meaning and must receive its ordinary meaning in the context of section 3(1). It is wide enough to include a building together with a controller or organiser constituted as a partnership, company or companies.
3. The statutory phrase provides accommodation together with nursing or personal care is not confined to accommodation supplied under a licence or institutional arrangement. Accommodation supplied by lease or assured tenancy may still be provided by the establishment. The court assumed, by reference to Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, that an assured tenant has a legal interest in the property and a right to exclude others.
4. The existence of a lessor and lessee relationship can indicate that the establishment does not provide both the accommodation and the care, but it cannot be determinative. The decisive question is factual: whether the establishment provides the accommodation together with nursing or personal care.
5. The accommodation and care need not be supplied by the same person or company. Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Waller agreed with Sir William Aldous’s judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — appeal dismissed on 24 May 2005. Sir William Aldous gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Waller agreeing.
2. Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division — Mitting J dismissed the judicial review challenge on 15 October 2004.
3. Care Standards Tribunal — dismissed Alternative Futures’ appeal against refusal to cancel registration of eleven houses as care homes.