Tranquil Group Ltd v Flintshire County Council

Decision No. 371 REGISTERED HOMES ACT 1984 CHILDREN ACT 1989 This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be drawn to the attention of registration and inspection staff and legal advisors TRANQUIL GROUP LTD APPELLANTS V FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONDENTS Tribunal sitting at Flintshire County Hall, St David's Park, Ewloe, North Wales, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday 15th, 16th and 17th March 1999 to hear an appeal in respect of a refusal to register Tranquil House, Milwr, Holywell, as a children's' home in accordance with section 63 of the Children Act 1989. Before:Margaret Rutherford QCMs Eveline NewbyMichael Bishop EsqRepresentationMiss Alice Robinson of Counsel instructed by Miss Helga Karlsonof Flintshire County Council- RespondentsJason Galbraith-Marten Esq of Counsel instructed byRichard Price Esq of Pannoni & Partners- Appellants DECISION – The Appellants withdrew their appeal on Wednesday 17th. March, whereupon it was deemed dismissed. Therefore the decision of the Respondent registration authority that registration of Tranquil House as a Children's' Home be refused, shall have effect. WITNESSES For the Respondents: Mrs Deborah Russell Mrs Jane Owens INTRODUCTION  Since the evidence of the Respondents' evidence was almost complete at the time the Appellants withdrew their appeal it was felt appropriate to include in this decision a brief background of the case and the Reasons on which the Respondents relied to refuse registration. BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE  Mr Butterworth and his wife were formerly foster parents. He proposed to open three small residential homes for children. Tranquil House operated as an unregisterable children's' home (the Home) for some 2 years with 3 young people accommodated there. An application was received from the Tranquil Group Ltd in May 1997. It is understood that the shareholders of the company are Philip and Joy Butterworth, and that the Directors are Philip Butterworth and Paul Wilcox. Pre-registration inspections occurred from January 1997. Various individuals were put forward as Manager of the Home. Concerns were raised by the Respondents. Correspondence was exchanged and various Fit Person interviews occurred.  A decision was taken in April 1998 to refuse registration, and Notices of Intention to Refuse were sent to the Appellants on 28th. April. On 8th, 9th and 10th July 1998 there was a hearing of Representations by the Appellants against the Notice of Intention to Refuse Registration. On 13th of July the Appellants confirmed that they were withdrawing from the Representations hearing. On 3rd September 1998 the Notice of Decision to refuse registration was sent to the Appellants. Correspondence between the parties continued  No children have been accommodated at the Home since March 1998. REASONS ON WHICH THE RESPONDENTS RELIED FOR REFUSAL TO REGISTER

1. Failure to appoint a suitably qualified Manager (Person in Charge)  l(a). Throughout the period since the application was made the Appellants have failed to employ a suitably qualified person as the manager of the Home. The current management arrangements remain unclear. Despite considerable help and guidance from officers from the North East Wales Registration and Inspection Unit the Appellants have been unable to sustain the improvement in operational practice deemed necessary to bring the Home up to registration standards required in order to achieve compliance.  1(b). There has not been a suitably qualified manager in post at any.stage since the application was made. Even in December 1997, the Appellants' representative (Mr.Butterworth) was still enquiring what qualifications were necessary for the appointment of a manager, despite having been given the relevant information. On 24th November 1997 the Appellants nominated Paul Wilcox in writing as manager, yet when the Respondents question Mr.Wilcox on the matter on 28th.January 1998, he stated that he was never intended to act as the manager of the Home.

2. The age criteria for the Home is inappropriately wide.  The stated purpose of the Home was to provide specialist care for 9 – 16 year old boys and girls. The age spread was inappropriately wide and, even if narrowed, to 10 – 16 as was later proposed by the Appellants, would compromise the care of children at the lower end of the age range if alongside those at the upper end. As an example, in January 1998 two young people accommodated at the Home were a 17- year-old boy who in the past the Appellants' representative, Mr.Butterworth has described as an abuser and who has a history of involvement with drugs and alcohol, and a 12-year old girl from Devon.

3. Lack of clarity about the structure and operation of the Company.  This original reason has been overtaken by events by most recent information. However, there is stilt a lack of clarity about the operation of the company in that the Head of Care has not yet been appointed. Additionally, there is apparent confusion in that the stated roles of the Director (Chairman of the Board) is also the children's' advocate.

4. Failure of the Appellants to supply appropriate references.  The Appellants have failed to supply sufficient references to the Respondents despite a request to do so by letter dated 12th December 1997 and a subsequent verbal reminder  (Reasons 5 and 6 were withdrawn )

7. Staff have insufficient training and experience.  The staff employed at the Home did not appear by their training and experience to provide the proper level of care that the Home should be offering. Staff were certainly not equipped to provide the type of "specialist" care which the Appellants claim to be offering.

8. Failure to monitor staff.  There is no evidence that staff are monitored in the performance of their duties. The only qualified person connection with the Home in December 1997 and January 1998 was Mr.Wilcox who only visited the premises on 16th. December 1997 and 13th. January 1998, a position which is totally unsatisfactory.The Respondents have attempted to interview him on two occasions. However. he has failed to attend on either appointment.

9. Emergency placements are incompatible with the stated aims of Tranquil House  The application did not state that the Home will accept emergency placements, yet during the period during which the application was under consideration, the Home did take emergency referrals. It is considered that accepting emergency placements is not compatible with the stated aim of the Home in providing specialist care for young people.

10. Failure to set up an internal care plan.  The Appellants failed to set up an internal care plan for the care of the 12-year- old girl from Devon whose placement they accepted in December 1997. The Respondents believe that whilst the Appellants have established policies for the management of the Home, the policies are not understood to be important by the Appellants and are not put into practice in the day to day running of the Home.

11. Failure to understand the quantitative difference between fostering and running a Children' s Home.  The Appellants' representative, Mr.Butterworth, has stated that he considers that the Home is merely "the next stage on from fostering". The Respondents have seen little evidence that he has understood the qualitative difference that exists between being a foster parent and running a registered children's home. The Respondents have no confidence that Mr.Butterworth understands the importance of establishing and operating acceptable policies and procedures for the proper running of a children's home.

12. Mr.Butterworth is not a fit and proper person to operate a registered Children's Home.

13. The current statement of purpose and the policies and procedures for the Home are inadequate in a number of respects. Margaret RutherfordEveline NewbyMichael Bishop