Marshall (Harvest Residential Care Home) v Commission for Social Care Inspection, Court of Appeal - Establishments and Agencies, October 13, 2008, [2007] EWCST 1189(EA)

Resolution Date:October 13, 2008
Issuing Organization:Establishments and Agencies
Actores:Marshall (Harvest Residential Care Home) v Commission for Social Care Inspection


Marshall (Harvest Residential Care Home) v-Commission for Social Care Inspection [2007] EWCST 1189(EA) (13 October 2008)

Marjorie Marshall

(Harvest Residential Care Home)


Commission for Social Care Inspection

No. [2007] 1189.EA



Mr I Robertson (Chairman)

Ms J Funnell

Ms J Wade

Sitting in Pocock Street

On 12 June and 29 and 30 September 2008


The Appellant was represented by Mr W Lewis of counsel

The Respondents were represented by Ms S Broadfoot of counsel


  1. This application relates to a Care Home known as Harvest 1. Its proprietor is Marjorie Marshall. It was registered as a care home for up to 3 persons in the category of mental disorder on 10 October 2001 by the London Borough of Croydon. On 26 September 2005 Ms Marshall submitted an application to be registered as a provider of a new care home ``Harvest 2''. It transpired that on that application form Ms Marshall, had given a false date of birth, had failed to disclose previous convictions and had failed to reveal details of a previous surname that she had been known by. Her application was refused and she appealed this refusal.

  2. That appeal was heard by the Care Standards Tribunal on 17 and 18 November 2006. In a carefully worded decision the Tribunal dismissed the appeal finding;

    ``We therefore conclude that the decision by Ms Marshall to omit her name and details of previous convictions from the application form was a deliberate attempt on her part to deceive the Commission into believing that she had no previous convictions and similarly in relation to her non disclosure of her former name of Wilkinson on the CRB form that this was an attempt to prevent the Commission from finding out about her previous convictions''

  3. The Commission, once the decision was promulgated (and confirmed upon review), looked carefully at both the running of Harvest 1 and also the documentation presented to the local authority at the time the Home was registered. It became apparent that the same deception had been practised on the original application. The Commission also had concerns about Ms Marshall's probity in other areas of her practice and also about the running of the home generally. A Notice of proposal to cancel registration was served on 10 September 2007 and Notice of Cancellation served on 1 November 2007 for the breach of the requirements of the Care Home Regulations 2001 (the Regulations) citing that the requirements of Regulation 7 (personal integrity), Regulation 10 (management issues) and Regulation 19 (employment of staff) had been breached. Ms Marshall did not respond to the Notice of proposal to cancel registration other than on 3 October to state that she was seeking legal advice. Ms Marshall appealed to this Tribunal on or around 3 December (although the application is undated).

  4. Application was made by the Commission to strike out the Appeal. This application was heard by the deputy President on 25 March 2008 when he dismissed it giving detailed reasons for this. On 12 June we adjourned the matter to be heard on 29 September with a time estimate of 4 days


  5. The Commission's case in opposing the appeal has two strands. To put matters crudely the first relates to fitness and integrity and the second to the running of the home. It is well...

To continue reading