{"id":1138170,"date":"2026-06-18T11:13:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T09:13:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/"},"modified":"2026-06-18T11:13:59","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T09:13:59","slug":"leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/","title":{"rendered":"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

DECISION No. 373 REGISTERED HOMES ACT 1984 This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be drawn to the attention of registration and inspection staff and legal advisors. LESLIE TOWNSEND -v- LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL The decision of the tribunal sitting at County Hall, Preston on 17 March 1999\u00a0 Tribunal: Mrs E Goodman Mr M Attenborough Mr G Harper Representation: Appellant: None Respondent: Mr I Dacre Witnesses: Ms Denham Mr P Rooney DECISION\u00a0 It is the unanimous decision of the tribunal that the Appellant's appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the Respondents to adopt the proposal to cancel the registration of Mr L Townsend as a person in control of Ivor House, Registered Care Home, is upheld.\u00a0 Reasons for the Decision\u00a0 The tribunal considered the written and oral evidence of Julia Denham (Assistant Team Leader) and Patrick Rooney (Inspector for Adult Residential Homes) and the affidavit from Lesley Harrison (Inspecting Officer for Adult Residential Services). The tribunal also considered carefully the oral evidence of the appellant, no written statement have been submitted.\u00a0 The tribunal first considered the meaning of "fit person". They accepted that there is no statutory definition and agreed that "a fit person is one who can be trusted in whom one has confidence, who acts according to high principles". Decision No. 76. They also note:\u00a0 "the question of the honesty and integrity of a manager is vital to the relationship which exists between such a person and the local authority. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. They must be able to trust people who have been registered." Decision No. 209. The tribunal considered the concerns noted in the statement of reasons dated 11.2.1999 (Documents 1 to 3).\u00a0 The tribunal first considered the issue of staffing. The tribunal accepted that minimum requirements were 2 members of staff on duty during the day, and at night one with another on-call in the vicinity. There were a number of occasions when only one member of staff was on duty during the day. Such concern was expressed following Inspection Unit visits on 6.9.1997, 27.2.1998, 28.2.1998, 18.4.1998 and 22.7. 1998. Mr Townsend, in his oral evidence, accepted there were difficulties in obtaining staff in a Home – for persons with a mental illness. He told the tribunal although only one person was on the duty roster – he was on the premises making up staff numbers to two. He then stated he was there in the mornings but was absent in the afternoons on occasions. He also told the tribunal some staff worked as cleaners and care workers to make up numbers. The tribunal accepted that not only were staff numbers allowed to fall below the permitted level but that Mr Townsend had taken no steps to avoid the problem.\u00a0 The tribunal considered the issue of recorded care plans. In December 1995, Mr Townsend was advised to develop care plans. On 3 July 1997 he was advised that the care plans in operation were inappropriate, that the needs of residents were not fully identified, nor did they contain appropriate strategies for staff in their work with each individual. Julia Denham discussed inadequate care plans with Mr Townsend, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal, accepted he had no care plans. He stated he found it difficult to devise a care plan for his residents. He stated if good progress was made it would be noted and put in the resident's file.\u00a0 The tribunal then considered the issue of drug records. Julia Denham stated that on 28.2.1998 she and Mr Rooney observed one member of staff administer medication without signing the drug administration records. The record had been signed by another member of staff previously. On 11.5.98 she noted that medication administered at lunchtime for 2 residents was signed as if administered in the morning.\u00a0 The issue of the maintenance of the fabric and furniture of the Home was raised. There were a number of references: to a dirty carpet, a broken window, poor decoration, a broken wardrobe. Specific areas of concern were noted on 15 April 1998 during an unannounced visit. The appellant told the Tribunal he had been 'slipshod'. He told the tribunal he had now bought new carpets and lino.\u00a0 The tribunal considered the present situation. They accepted that Mr Townsend was making efforts to rectify difficulties. He was improving furnishings within the Home. However, on 7 January 1999 a fire report was received which stated that recommendations made over the past 2 years had not been carried out. Letters were sent by the Inspection Unit asking the appellants for his proposals to rectify the situation. In January 1999 an unpaid gas bill led to a potential threat of disconnection. Staff records were not made available on an Inspection Unit visit on 25 February 1999.\u00a0 Mr Townsend explained his difficulties and how he dealt with them. He stated that there have been no disasters. He believed records should all be locked up – he kept the key. He stated he did not receive a copy of the fire report dated February 1999. He said his requests for social workers to attend the home were fruitless.\u00a0 The tribunal accepted Mr Townsend's oral evidence. They accept he has had staffing and financial difficulties. They do not accept that the existence of such difficulties can be used as an excuse for lack of co-operation with the Inspection Unit and for a reduction in the required standards. The appellant did not appear to recognise the support and organisation required to assist the residents to lead a more valued life. He did not maintain and develop care plans, he did not maintain at all times staffing levels. Drug recording was unacceptable.\u00a0 The tribunal, in making the decision, was aware of the lack of supporting evidence for the appellant. No supporting evidence was provided by GPs, relatives, staff, or residents. The only evidence was the appellant's own oral evidence. The tribunal found there was little persuasive evidence to support the appellant's case.\u00a0\u00a0 Mrs E GoodmanMr M AttenboroughMr G Harper<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence v2.0 (The National Archives). Republication avec attribution. Computational analysis necessite accord complementaire.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DECISION No. 373 REGISTERED HOMES ACT 1984 This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be drawn to the attention of registration and inspection staff and legal advisors. LESLIE TOWNSEND -v- LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL The decision of the tribunal sitting at County Hall, Preston on 17 March 1999 Tribunal: Mrs E Goodman Mr M Attenborough Mr G Harper…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7711],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[135658],"kji_subject":[7712],"kji_keyword":[7633,7622,10652,42591,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1138170","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-care-standards","kji_year-135658","kji_subject-social","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-staff","kji_keyword-townsend","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nLeslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"DECISION No. 373 REGISTERED HOMES ACT 1984 This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be drawn to the attention of registration and inspection staff and legal advisors. LESLIE TOWNSEND -v- LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL The decision of the tribunal sitting at County Hall, Preston on 17 March 1999 Tribunal: Mrs E Goodman Mr M Attenborough Mr G Harper...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\\\/\",\"name\":\"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-18T09:13:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council","og_description":"DECISION No. 373 REGISTERED HOMES ACT 1984 This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be drawn to the attention of registration and inspection staff and legal advisors. LESLIE TOWNSEND -v- LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL The decision of the tribunal sitting at County Hall, Preston on 17 March 1999 Tribunal: Mrs E Goodman Mr M Attenborough Mr G Harper...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/","name":"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-18T09:13:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/leslie-townsend-v-lancashire-county-council\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Leslie Townsend v Lancashire County Council"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1138170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1138170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1138170"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1138170"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1138170"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1138170"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1138170"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1138170"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1138170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}