[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Akhter & Anor (Woodbine Villa) v NCSC [2002] EWCST 116(NC) (13 March 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2003/116(NC).html Cite as: [2002] EWCST 116(NC)

[New search] [Help]

Akhter & Anor (Woodbine Villa) v NCSC [2002] EWCST 116(NC) (13 March 2003)

Woodbine Villa, Rushden, Northampton (Mr Shaid Akhter and Mr Tanveer Salam)
v
NCSC
[2002] 116.NC

DECISION ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEDULE 1 paragraph 4 OF THE REGULATIONS

1. On 11^th September 2002, the NCSC cancelled the registration of appellants under s 14 of the Care Standards Act 2000. They are partners in an enterprise to run a care home known as Woodbine Villa. They were informed by letter dated 17^th September 2002 of their right of appeal. By letter dated 4^th October 2002, Mr Akhter and Mr Salam wrote to the Area Manager of the NCSC stating that they wish to appeal the decision and this letter was passed on to the Tribunal. On 15^th November 2002, the Secretary to the Tribunal enclosed an application form B1 to Mr Akhter and asked him to complete the form and sign it. A further emailed copy of this form was sent to Mr Akhter on 22^nd November 2002 and he was asked to submit it by 26^th November 2002. On 3^rd December 2002, Mr Akhter emailed the Tribunal to inform it that he was in the process of preparing a full statement and would be able to submit it in three weeks.
2. I considered all the papers that were available to me on 6^th December 2002 and directed in accordance with Regulation 10(1) and 10(2) that unless the applicants submit a completed B1 form so as to arrive no later than 16^th December 2002, the case may be determined in favour of the Respondent.
3. The B1 did arrive and is dated and signed by Mr Akhter on 15^th December 2002. The further information form B5 is dated and signed by Mr Akhter on 1^st February 2003. On this form Mr Akhter seeks a preliminary hearing with regard to Directions.
4. I set down the date 13^th March 2003 for a Directions Hearing. Mr Akhter was informed by email on 17^th February 2003.
5. Neither Mr Akhter nor Mr Salam appeared at the Directions hearing. The Secretary telephoned Mr Akhter’s telephone number and received a recorded message to the effect that the number was unobtainable. The Secretary then telephoned Mr Salam. He answered the phone, and told the Secretary that his partner, Mr Akhter was out of the country, and that he (Mr Salam) had no idea that there was to be a hearing this morning.
6. Regulation 7(6) makes it clear that a Tribunal shall not adjourn a hearing "unless satisfied that refusing an adjournment would prevent the just disposal of the case." I have to look at the history of the matter, the interests of both parties and indeed of any residents (although there are none in this case as the home is now closed). I am of the view that it would be inappropriate to adjourn the matter this morning, and I therefore go on to consider any matters urged on me by Mr Jacks of Mills and Reeve Solicitors acting on behalf of the Respondents.
7. He urged me to exercise my powers under paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 1 and strike out the appeal on the grounds that it is "misconceived." He earlier abandoned the suggestion that the appeal was in any event out of time. To decide whether an appeal is misconceived I must look at the pleaded documents on the file to date, namely B1 and B5 and see whether these forms disclose any grounds of appeal relevant to the decision taken by the NCSC. B1 provides background information where observations are made, first, about the Home prior to the purchase, secondly, about adverse publicity surrounding panel hearings, and thirdly, that the business was no longer viable. It ends "In these two years venture we have made huge financial losses and self esteem has been dented and integrity is hurt badly. Huge efforts were made to put procedures and personnel in place to run the Care Home in compliance with all of the regulations." The specific reasons why the Respondents’ Registration was cancelled on 11^th September 2002 are nowhere addressed in this document. (The reasons for cancellation are set out in document 14 of the Respondent’s bundle and in summary form sets out breaches of the Care Homes Regulations 10(1),12(1)(a)(b),13(2),14(2)(a)(b),181)(a), and 19(1)(a)(b)(c),). Form B5 by way of further information adds nothing to the appellants’ grounds of appeal.
8. With no grounds of appeal pleaded and no attempt made at all to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the heart of the appellants’ case, it must necessarily follow that this appeal has no prospect of success whatsoever. It is, to use the language of the Regulation, totally misconceived. In these circumstances I strike out the appeal in this case, in relation to both Mr Akhter and Mr Salam.
9. For the avoidance of any doubt, I deal also with the application by Mr Akhter to voluntarily cancel his registration under s 15(1)(b). This was made by Mr Akhter on 23^rd July 2002. By letter dated 5^th August 2002 the NCSC advised Mr Akhter of their inability to accept the application. Assuming, without having to decide, that the letter dated 5^th August 2002 was a "decision", an appeal would have to have been brought to the Tribunal within 28 days from that decision (s 21(2)). It never was, and any of the proceedings that I have held to be in time relate solely to the notice of cancellation under s 14. Any appeal against the refusal to cancel is out of time.

ORDER: THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANTS (MR AKHTER AND MR SALAM) IS STRUCK OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 4(1)(b) OF SCHEDULE 1.

COSTS: The question of Costs is reserved until the respondents submit a schedule of costs and a skeleton argument as to why the appellants have acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings.

His Honour Judge David Pearl
President

13^th March 2003.