Austin Resources Care Services Limited v Care Quality Commission
First-tier Tribunal Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00586 (HESC)
2025-01615.EA
Hearing held via CVP
On 15 April 2026
Before
Specialist Member Elizabeth Bainbridge
Specialist Member Linda Owen
Between:
Austin Resources Care Services Limited
Appellant
-v-
Care Quality Commission
Respondent
DECISION
The Application
This is an appeal against the decision of the Care Quality Commission (the Respondent), contained in a Notice of Decision (NoD) letter dated 21 August 2025, to cancel Austin Resources Care Services Limited (the Appellant’s) registration as a provider of the Regulated Activity of Personal Care (the Regulated Activity) at or from Austin Resources Care Services Limited, 62c London Road, Oadby, Leicester LE2 5DH (the Location). The appeal was lodged on 8 September 2025.
The NoD adopted the Respondent’s Notice of Proposal (NoP) dated 9 July 2025 to cancel the Appellant’s registration on the basis that the Appellant had not been carrying on the Regulated Activity for a continuous period of 12 months or more.
Attendance
The Appellant Esther Nzeakor represented herself.
The respondent was represented by Ms Deignan of Counsel.
Background
The Appellant first registered with the Respondent on 1 December 2023. On 3 occasions (27/6/24, 27/9/24 and 29/4/25) the Appellant emailed the Respondents to request dormancy status. All three requests were granted. By 9 July 2025 it was clear that no services were being provided under the registration and a proposal to cancel registration was sent to the Appellant. This was followed by a Notice of decision to cancel the registration dated 21 August 2025. On 8 September 2025 the Appellant issued her appeal against that decision.
Legal Framework
The governing statute is the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This provides for the role of the Care Quality Commission to, amongst other matters, protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the people who use health and social care services. As part of that role the CQC is empowered to register providers of personal care. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations and the relevant regulations are the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
Regulation 6 sets out the grounds for cancellation of Registration;
—(1) The grounds specified for the purposes of section 17(1)(e) of the Act as grounds on which the Commission may cancel the registration of a registered person in respect of a regulated activity are that the registered person—
has made a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect, or provided false information, in relation to any application for—
registration, or
the variation or removal of a condition in relation to their registration;
has failed to pay any fees payable under provision under section 85 of the Act; or
if the registered person is a service provider, is not, and has not been for a continuous period of 12 months ending with the date of the decision to cancel registration, carrying on that regulated activity.
The relevant ground in this case is Reg 6 (c). In approaching this the Tribunal must consider matters as at the date of the appeal, weigh up the evidence applying the civil standard of proof and determine whether any decision made by the respondent is proportionate, if evidentially the facts are established
Evidence
We had before us a bundle running to 180 pages. In this case the evidence is not disputed. It is accepted that since registration the Appellant has not carried out activities as a provider of personal services. In her very short statement Ms Nzeakor states that she has been trying to obtain contracts but has been unsuccessful to date and requires more time to try and get these. She provided no evidence substantiating the efforts made to obtain contracts.
In her statement she says the following;
Some of our NHS hospitals sometimes request that CQC-registered agencies supply candidates to their wards, even though we are not directly involved in the day-to-day running of the wards or homes. Cancelling our registration will negatively impact our overall business.
In her submissions to us she indicated that her registration restricted her to only seeking contracts local to the registered premises of the company, in her case, Leicester City. If this were the case, it is worrying that a registered provider should so misunderstand the nature of her registration. However, in response to questions from the Tribunal she accepted that she had in fact applied for contracts with three other authorities. We remain confused regarding these apparently contradictory statements.
Ms Nzeakor submitted that the decision to cancel her registration was disproportionate as it prevented her seeking contracts as, obviously, registration is a precondition to any application. As indicated, she provided no evidence to us of her attempts to obtain contracts to date.
The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons
Ms Deignan’s submissions to us in a helpful skeleton argument were as follows;
The rationale behind Regulation 6(1)(c) of the 2009 Regulations is that, when a service has been dormant, the Respondent cannot, via inspection, be satisfied itself nor can it satisfy eg potential service users and their friends and family and commissioners that the Appellant is meeting the requirements of the relevant Regulations - if the Appellant was to remain registered, this would give the impression to the public and to commissioning bodies that the Respondent has assessed the Appellant. The purpose of the register maintained by the Respondent is for there to be register available to the public, to providers and to commissioners of providers that are currently carrying on the regulated activities for which they are registered. In order to maintain the integrity of the register the Respondent is required to monitor dormant services and keep the register up to date. If the Appellant was to remain on the register this would be misleading as it would suggest that the Appellant is currently providing the Regulated Activity whereas in fact the Appellant is functioning as an agency, which does require registration with the CQC, and has never provided the Regulated Activity since registration.
This is a compelling argument. The fact is that the appellant has not provided services for which it is registered for the 28 months since registration. They have provided no evidence of attempts made to obtain contracts to provide such services and Ms Nzeakor has provided contradictory accounts of her understanding of the effect of registration. It appears to us that the main purpose of remaining registered is, as set out in her statement, to provide “Kudos” (Ms Deignans word) for her agency business.
In all the circumstances therefore we consider that the decision of the CQC to cancel the registration is entirely proportionate.
Decision:
To dismiss the Appeal.
Judge Ian Robertson
First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care)
Date Issued: 16 April 2026
