Chandra v Care Standards Tribunal

An appellate court will not interfere where a tribunal has carefully assessed the evidence, considered material improvements and reached reasoned conclusions on fitness and regulatory compliance. The tribunal is not generally responsible for calling evidence which a party could have obtained and chose not to call. In assessing cancellation of care-home registration, the tribunal may give decisive weight to continuing regulatory breaches, the risk to residents and the proprietors’ lack of fitness, even where residents are receiving some satisfactory care and relocation may cause stress.

Dr Chandra and his wife appealed under section 21 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the Care Standards Tribunal’s unanimous dismissal of their appeals concerning conditions imposed on, and cancellation of, their registration as proprietors of Kingshaven Rest Home. The Tribunal had found sustained regulatory breaches, inadequate management, the absence of a registered manager and that neither appellant was fit to remain a registered proprietor.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of later improvements, efforts to appoint a manager, an external consultancy report, and the effect of moving elderly residents.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was careful and comprehensive. It set out the evidence, made firm findings on the appellants’ fitness and identified serious and repeated regulatory breaches.
2. The Tribunal had taken account of improvements in the home’s operation. Its findings expressly recorded better responses from residents and relatives, a clean environment, staff training, improved systems and some standards being met. The first ground therefore failed.
3. The Tribunal had also considered the appellants’ efforts to find a registered manager. It was entitled to conclude that those efforts were inadequate, including because there had been no effective professional recruitment strategy and the proposed management arrangements were unsuitable.
4. The Tribunal was required to decide the case on the evidence submitted by the parties. It was not its responsibility to call the makers of the external report. If Dr Chandra considered their evidence necessary to place the report in context, it was for him to call them. The third ground failed.
5. The Tribunal had considered the stress and disruption that relocation might cause residents. Nevertheless, it was entitled to conclude that continuing breaches placed residents at risk and that the seriousness of the position left it with little choice but to dismiss the appeals. The possibility that the business might soon become financially unviable was also relevant.
6. There was no evidence of bias or unfairness in the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment records an appeal from the Care Standards Tribunal, which had unanimously dismissed the appellants’ appeals against conditions imposed on, and cancellation of, their care-home registration. The High Court dismissed the appeal.