MR AND MRS FEHINTOLA Appellants

And

CITY OF BRADFORD METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Respondent

Decision of the Tribunal sitting at the Town Hall, Bradford on 19 September 1988.

Before:
His Honour B R Gerrard - Chairman
Mr Michael Burrel
Mr Kenneth Coleman

Appeal against the decision to exclude additional living space created by alteration to the accommodation from Registration at Parkfield Rest Home, Parkfield Road, Bradford.

For the Appellants:
Mr Newbon, Counsel, instructed by
Mr Sykes, Solicitor.

For the Respondents:
Mr G Shelton, Counsel, instructed by
The solicitors to the Local Authority.

DECISION

The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the respondents.

REASONS

The Appellants have run a Rest Rome at Parkfield for eleven residents for some time. It should be stated straight away that there is nothing adverse about them or the manner in which they run the home. The home is a fairly old building, being at one time a private house with a basement, ground floor and floors above. In order to facilitate residents who wish to go from the ground to the first floor there is a staircase and a stair lift. The width of that staircase was such that if a person was using the stair lift it was virtually impossible for any other person to walk up or down the stairs at the same time. For some months prior to the hearing the Appellants had been considering bringing the basement into use, turning that into a dining room and by readjustment of the remaining accommodation increasing the number of residents from eleven to twelve.

It is the use of that dining room area and the staircase leading to it that is the centre of this appeal. A number of doubts were in the Local Authority's mind, for example ventilation, the amount of fresh air, the view from the dining area and whether the room was an underground room. A number of these matters were resolved prior to the hearing. No complaints were made about fire risk, ventilation, and the size of the room itself. The matter was discussed by the select committee of the Bradford City Council, they heard evidence but decided not to adopt the suggestions put forward by the Appellant. It is from that decision that the Appellants come to the Tribunal. Basically the issue that we have to decide is the suitability of the staircase leading down to the dining area. The staircase is fairly typical of the sort built in those days leading to a cellar. The local authority's objection to the staircase is in paragraph 2(3) of their statement of reasons under Rule 5(2) of the Rules. The relevant part reads "the staircase leading to the proposed dining room, and which is the only means of internal access, is unsuitable for the use of elderly and infirm residents". Paragraph 4 reads "the suggested installation of a chair lift to the staircase would create additional difficulties and would constitute a potential hazard to the safety of residents".

The staircase in question is a straight line of steps without a curve or landing. It is narrow and steep, the steps being 321/2" wide but the distance allowed for access for residents was 30 3/4" wide because of the fixture of a handrail to the left hand side descending. Without a chair lift the problem of getting an old and or infirm person up and down the staircase is self evident. Twelve residents would use the staircase twice a day in order to take lunch and tea. The chair lift would solve some problems and create others. A person using the chair lift would go up and down in relative safety. They would have to be unaccompanied because of insufficient space for a member of staff to accompany them.

In order for the stair lift to provide access to residents getting on and off, the door at the top of the stairs would have to remain off the hinges, and the stair lift would have to travel along the ground floor for some distance to allow persons to get on and off. This inevitably will lead to congestion. At the moment it is a condition of registration that the door at the top of the stairs remains locked because of the hazard it presents to residents as they walk through the house. Those two factors seem to us to prevent the safe use of this staircase and this fact alone renders the registration of the dining areas unfit within the meaning of the Act.

The depositions handed in to the Tribunal give a great deal of detail leading up to the hearing of this case by the committee and this Tribunal. Allegations of racism have been made and I would like to reassure the Appellants that this decision is based upon what the Tribunal saw when they went to the premises, and the documentary evidence put before it. We are an independent body and unanimous in our decision.

October 1988

Signed

His Honour Judge B H Gerrard - Chairman
Mr Michael Burrell
Mr Kenneth Coleman