Mr and Mrs Bexson v Derbyshire County Council

DECISION OF THE REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNAL HELD AT DERBY ON 2 APRIL 1986 Appeal by Mr and Mrs Bexson against the decision of the Derbyshire County Council to reduce the number of residents for which the residential care home, Southbank is registered from 10 to

8. For the appellant:Mark Rogers of Counsel (instructed by Talbot and Co) For the respondent:Mr McElvaney (Solicitor with the County Council) DECISION The Tribunal unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal and confirm the Council's decision. REASONS Mr and Mrs Bexson are the proprietors of Southbank residential care home. The home was first registered in June 1983 for 10 residents to be accommodated then as follows: 3 in a three-bedded room, 6 in three two-bedded rooms and 1 in a single room. In fact there have been only 9 residents as a widower occupies one of the double rooms alone. As a result of an inspection by Mr Upsall for the Council the Bexson's were required to comply with certain conditions. One of these was that the occupancy of the three-bedded room should be reduced to two, another that the occupancy of one of the double rooms should be reduced to one, thus reducing the registered numbers to

8. This was to become effective as vacancies in the two particular rooms occurred. Mrs Bexson accepts the reduction in the three-bedded room and the reduction of the registered numbers to

9. The only issue before us was whether the registered numbers should be reduced to 8 once a vacancy occurred in the one double room already mentioned. This double room measures 13ft 4ins by 9ft 9ins with in addition a built in cupboard 5ft long by 1ft 6ins wide. The total area of the room, including the cupboard is therefore just over 137 square feet. This falls short of the recommended and generally accepted minimum size for a double room by 30 square feet (see Local Authority Building Note 2 of May 1973 paragraph 5.3). There was evidence from Mr Clough, who was a member of the Working Party which prepared the Report entitled "Home Life", that the recommended area for a double room of 167 square feet was the minimum to provide the necessary privacy of space, dignity and autonomy of elderly people sharing a room. This accorded with the view of the members of the Tribunal and was illustrated by the photographs produced by the appellant. The room was tastefully furnished and homely. But it provided very little privacy of space for the occupants. With the wash basin, dressing table, chest of drawers, small chair and privately owned wooden commode, the room was only a bedroom and provided little space even for one occupant to use it comfortably during the day. There was certainly not space for two comfortable armchairs even if the commode was moved out. Mr Upsall considered that the shortfall of 30 square feet from the recommended minimum was in the circumstances too great to be acceptable, though he had allowed the other two double rooms, each of which were 15 square feet under the minimum to pass muster. The Tribunal accepts that each case must be locked at on its merits without slavish adherence to arbitrary standards. On the evidence this was a small, homely and popular home which, being a bungalow, met the needs of the residents admirably in many respects. These were factors which were taken into account by the Council, and it cannot be said that in reaching its decision it failed to look at the case on its merits. It was contended by Mrs Bexson that the home would not be economically viable if run for only 8 residents. The figures she produced certainly showed that at best she would on that number make only a minimal profit, if not a loss. She and her husband own two other homes in the area accommodating 42 residents (reducing to 39) and if Southbank is going to be uneconomic she said she may have to close it. This would, of course, be most unfortunate for the present residents, but the Tribunal did not consider that that was a factor which was strong enough in the circumstances to warrant allowing the room in question to be occupied by two persons. The room will make a very attractive single room and we hope that the result of our decision will not be as fatal to the continued operation of this home as we were led to believe. The Tribunal unanimously upheld the Council's decision to limit the registration of Southbank to 8 residents. Signed- J C R Fieldsend – ChairmanG S DunnJ Hanson April 1986