LV v OFSTED, Court of Appeal, April 11, 2011, [2011] UKFTT 204 (HESC)

Resolution Date:April 11, 2011
Actores:LV v OFSTED

[2011] UKFTT 204 (HESC)

In the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care)

Care Standards Tribunal

[2011] 1882.EY-SUS

LV - appellant


OFSTED - respondent


Mr Brayne

Mrs Diamond

Mr Braybrook

Heard on the 6th April 2011 at the Care Standards Tribunal Mowden Hall, Darlington.

The appeal

  1. The appellant appeals against the respondent's decision dated 16th March 2011 to suspend her registration as a child minder for six weeks until 26th April 2011.

    The legal framework

  2. The statutory framework for the registration of childminders is provided under the Childcare Act 2006. This Act establishes two registers of childminders: the early years register and the general child care register. Section 69 (1) Act provides for regulations to be made dealing with the suspension of a registered persons' registration. The section also provides that the regulations must include a right of appeal to the tribunal.

  3. Under the Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) (Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 when deciding whether to suspend a childminder the test set out in regulation 9 is

    that the chief inspector reasonably believes that the continued provision of childcare by the registered person to any child may expose such a child to a risk of harm.

  4. The suspension shall be for a period of six weeks. Suspension may be lifted at any time if the circumstances described in regulation 9 cease to exist.

  5. `` Harm'' is defined in regulation 13 as having the same definition as in section 31 (9) of the Children Act 1989, `` ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another''.

  6. The powers of the tribunal are that it stands in the shoes of the Chief Inspector and so in relation to regulation 9 the question for the tribunal is whether at the date of its decision it reasonably believes that the continued provision of child care by the registered person to any child may expose such a child to a risk of harm.

  7. The burden of proof is on the respondent. The standard of proof `reasonable cause to believe' falls somewhere between the balance of probability test and `reasonable cause to suspect'. The belief is to be judged by whether a reasonable person, assumed to know the law and possessed of the information, would believe that a child might be at risk.

    The hearing

  8. The appellant asked for a determination on the papers. The respondent agreed to proceed without a hearing. We applied Rule 23 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008 and proceeded to make a decision without a hearing. The panel met and determined the appeal on 6th April 2011.

  9. The tribunal had a bundle of papers including the decision to suspend, the appeal, the response to the appeal, witness statements from the respondent, with exhibits, and character references submitted by the appellant

  10. The Tribunal makes a restricted reporting order under Rule 14 (1) (a) and (b) of the...

To continue reading