Mrs Gemma Greenhough v London Borough of Harrow

Decision No. 370 REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNAL This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be drawn to the attention of registration and inspection staff and legal advisors ———————————————————————————————————— MRS GEMMA GREENHOUGH – APPELLANT V LONDON BOROUGH OF HARROW – RESPONDENTS Tribunal sitting at the Civic Centre, Harrow, Middlesex, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, March 8th, 9th and 10th 1999, to hear an appeal in respect of Chestnut Cottage, Church Lane, Pinner, Middlesex. Before:Margaret Rutherford QCKen Coleman EsqMichael Attenborough Esq Representation: Patrick Cusack Esq of Patrick J Cusack & Co. Solicitors, for the Appellant Roger McCarthy QC instructed by Hugh Peart Esq,Head of Harrow Legal Servicesfor the Respondents DECISION- The Appellant withdrew her appeal on the third day of the hearing. As a consequence of Rule 12 the appeal was deemed to be dismissed. WITNESSES For the Respondents: Police Sergeant Stephen O'Rourke Police Officer Darin Cleverly Roland Pettitt Esq David Thorogood Esq Mrs Maureen Maloney Ranjit Tatter Esq Mrs.Leslie Charles Mrs.Barbara Watson Mrs.Gail Freeman Dr.Peter Jefferys Mrs.Josephine Blake Derek Hughes Esq Ms Sandra Miller – written statement only Ms Amanda Boddy " Graham Fielding Esq " Ian Eastburn Esq " For the Appellants: Dr. Ann Hardman (interposed) Mrs.Gemma Greenhough INTRODUCTION In view of the fact that evidence was heard for two full days before the Appellant, (who was in the middle of being cross examined), withdrew her appeal on the third day, it was felt appropriate that brief background details, and the essence of the Respondents' case including the Reasons for Cancellation relied upon, be given. BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE On 20th December 1993 Chestnut Cottage (the Home) was registered for three elderly persons, none of whom were to live on the third floor who could not descend without significant assistance. The Appellant had been caring for people at the Home pre-1990 and during that year there were complaints that there were 4 people in residence. This was admitted by the Appellant who agreed she knew it was a criminal offence. She was warned but no further action was taken. In 1991 various concerns were raised about the Home concerning fire regulations. The Appellant was told that if she sought registration for 4 or more residents further specified fire precautions would be required. In 1992 an anonymous complaint was made to the Respondents concerning numbers of residents at the Home. In 1993 concerns continued to be raised by the Respondents regarding numbers, for example the Appellant was told that public liability insurance was different for large and small homes. At the time of registration in December there were 4 residents in the Home. In 1994 the Appellant applied to be an approved provider for Harrow clients and she completed both a contract and an annual return. In each case she stated that she had only 3 residents. In 1995 the Respondents received complaints as to excess numbers at the Home and they visited in July. S was described as a relative, Z as a family friend who was visiting and there was no sign of G. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 the Appellant completed an annual return. The Appellant also completed a Harrow-provider application in 1997. An anonymous complaint was received from a former member of staff member saying that there were 7 residents in the Home and that extra residents had been concealed when the Respondents visited. In December 1997 the Respondents visited the Home during the evening. The Appellant, who was not present, admitted to the Respondents on the telephone that there were 5 residents in the Home at the time but that 2 came within the "relative exemption". The only staff present was a foreign cook who had not been long in the country. Also present were the Appellant's husband and 10-year old child. The child was seen escorting G outside, allegedly for a walk. The Appellant told lies to the Respondents about the length of stay of S. and stated, untruthfully, that W was her aunt. These lies were later admitted by the Appellant. In 1998 the Respondents made an unannounced visit and discovered K confined in an area of a laundry room, hidden from view by two members of staff (only recently in UK, neither of whom had permission to work and one of whom could speak no English), and by drying clothes. On 28th January 1998 an application was made to the Magistrate by the Respondents, who granted it. On the same day the Appellant, 3 members of her staff and her adult son were arrested and charged with false imprisonment and assault. All those arrested admitted that residents were concealed in the Home against their will when visitors called. The son admitted assaulting a resident and was cautioned by the police. In her police interviews the Appellant made various admissions. On 30th.January 1999 a Notice of Proposal to Cancel under section 12 was served. On 13th.May this proposal was adopted. All criminal charges against the Appellant were subsequently discontinued. SUBSTANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS' CASE The Respondents' case emerges from its Reasons for deregistration, and from the evidence of its own witnesses at the hearing and the cross-examination of a witness for the Appellant, and of the Appellant herself. Reasons for Cancellation

1. The Appellant knowingly, deliberately and repeatedly breached the conditions of her registration relating to numbers (3 only). Between February 1994 and January 1998 she provided residential accommodation for between 4 – 8 residents. 2.. On 3rd.Desmeber 1997 she caused her 10-year old daughter to attempt to remove a vulnerable elderly resident from the Home against her will in the dark in temperatures of 2 degrees C to avoid detection by the Respondents. This is contrary to Regulation 9(1) of the Regulations which require the registered person to arrange for the Home to be conducted so as to make proper provision for the welfare, care, and where appropriate, the treatment and supervision of all residents.

3. On l9th.January 1998 the Appellant caused a vulnerable elderly resident to be assaulted and imprisoned by hiding her in an ironing room against her will for at least one hour to avoid her detection by the Respondents. The experience caused the resident considerable distress.

4. The Appellant failed to inform residents or their relatives that she was breaching the conditions of her registration. In doing so she misled them and denied them their right to choose where to live in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

5. On 3rd.December 1997 neither member of staff on duty was able to explain where the residents' records were stored and one member said she was unable to speak English Two members of staff were illegally in the UK and did not have the required permission to work. Regulation 10(1)(a) requires the registered person to employ by day and, where necessary, at night suitably qualified and competent staff in adequate numbers.

6. The Appellant failed to recognise or respect the needs of residents and put their safety at considerable risk when admitting more then 3 residents. Homes for more than 3 people are required by Regulation 10(1)(h) to have adequate means of escape in the event of fire, have adequate arrangements for detecting, containing and extinguishing fires, for the giving of warnings and for the evacuation of all persons in the home in the event of fire and for the maintenance of fire precautions and fire fighting equipment. During all the time that more than 3 residents were accommodated at the Home (February 1994 – January 1998) these requirements were not met.

7. On l9th.January 1998 a quantity of amitriptyline was found on an open shelf in a room next to the kitchen, two medicine cupboards were unacceptably disorganized and many drugs stored there lacked specific instructions on dosage, contrary to Regulation 10(1)(q).

8. On 3rd.December 1997 staff refused or were unable to make any records available to the Respondents. On l9th. January 1998 the Appellant was unable to produce any records in respect of residents KK or HW and admitted that she did not keep any records of staff or other carers, contrary to Regulation 6(1).

9. The Appellant has repeatedly lied to the staff of the Respondents and deliberately falsified documents to conceal the number of residents.

10. The Appellant has breached the terms of her contract with, falsely claimed money from, and deceived, the London Borough of Harrow.

11. The Appellant has been rude, aggressive and uncooperative with the Respondents.

12. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate honesty. integrity and trustworthiness which are essential in any person who operates a residential care home. This failing is of particular significance given that the Appellant was registered to run a small home which is not subject to the same inspection regime as larger homes. The hearing. Much of the evidence adduced by the Respondents was unchallenged. The Respondents say that this is one of the worst cases of deception by a Home Owner ever to come before a Tribunal. The fact that the Appellant says she is very sorry, that she offered good care, that she took in excess numbers for others and not for selfish reasons is irrelevant / no defence. Throughout her whole time at the Home she ran over numbers and deliberately thereby put her residents at risk. She knew throughout that there was a restriction on numbers for the registration of a small home. She knew that it would have been impossible for her to have been registered in respect of a larger home because of the inadequacy of the fire regulations. The Home was a very old building (Listed Grade II) which could become a fire trap. In addition to the risk of fire there were inadequate numbers of staff, both by day and by night. Record keeping was virtually none-existent, in particular there was none whatsoever relating to medication given to the residents. Record keeping is more relaxed for small homes, but nevertheless still some records are essential, and in any event she was running in excess numbers throughout the entire period, i.e. as a larger home. An additional difficulty relating to the Home was the matter of public liability insurance, which requires a declaration to the Insurance Company as to how many residents are accommodated. It is likely she failed to disclose the true position to the Company and they would therefore have had a ground on which to repudiate the policy, should any claim have been made. The Appellant told lies continually to the Respondents about numbers of residents in the Home. Lies were told by the Appellant about the length of stay of G, of Z, and of K. She also told lies that W (alleged to be an "aunt") paid no fees and that W had no relatives. W paid the Appellant £500.00 a week, which was placed into an account belonging to the Appellant's son which she said was to give him "credit-worthiness" to obtain a mortgage, a matter which she later admitted to be untrue. W was no relation whatsoever of the Appellant and had a true niece, facts which were admitted by the Appellant. The events of December 1997 and January 1998 made it quite clear that the family knew she was running over numbers and that this fact was concealed. This is clearly demonstrated by the shocking events of l9th. January 1998 when 3 members of staff and one member of the family knew about the concealment in a confined space for something like an hour of a frail, 87-year old lady without mental capacity to give consent. She was hidden by staff and the evidence is that she suffered severe distress. The Appellant and 3 members of staff were privy to this concealment, a matter which was admitted. The Appellant's son took his mother's instructions to conceal K. One member of staff said that K was not a resident but "a visitor". This was cruel and inhuman treatment of K and disgraceful behaviour by the Appellant which she herself authorized, as she stated in her police interview. The Appellant did nothing to check the welfare of this lady during the visit of Registration Officers and the Home staff showed no concern about her after her ordeal when she was discovered by the Officers. The criminal law regrettably gave K no protection. The charge of false imprisonment would have been met with the fact that she had no mental capacity. K was, however, not the first resident to be concealed as the disgraceful episode in early December revealed. There the Appellant's child took out a lady "for a walk" during a cold, dark evening. She did not want to go for a walk in the cold. It was a pretence. How can the Appellant insist that there was a caring culture in the Home ? Her pretensions to care were hollow. She was only concerned with covering up her own wrong doing. The Respondents say that there were financial consequences to this deceipt. The Respondents were "conned" into parting with some £76,000.00 to the Appellant who concealed the fact that she had more than 3 residents in the Home, with the result that residents were placed with her who would otherwise have not have been. she was required by the terms of the contract to state the numbers in the Home. All her declarations were false. In short, she got Harrow to pay these sums through falsity, she acted dishonestly and with a view to financial gain. This further confirms her indifference to the truth. The Appellant asks to be given a chance, that she is sorry. Her witnesses say she runs a marvellous home. However, there is a provable background of misconduct, much of it admitted, towards her client group. She has lied continuously to the Respondents. Indeed on the very day she wrote them a letter (24th. January 1998) making her admissions and proffering both sincere apologies and a promise to "act in accordance with the spirit and intention of the legislation" in the future, she wrote another letter to the Respondents in which she made other material misstatements. The withdrawal of the appeal After the conclusion of the Respondents' case, and after the evidence of Dr.Ann Hardman for the Appellant, and after the Appellant had given evidence both in camera and in open court for some two hours and forty minutes (1400 – 1502; 1504 – 1640), the hearing was adjourned, the Appellant to remain on oath. The following morning, Wednesday 10th. March at 1010, the Appellant made it known through her solicitor that she wished to withdraw her appeal. Margaret Rutherford Ken Coleman Michael Attenborough This is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal