Williamson v Commission for Social Care Inspection [2006] EWCST 718(EA) (26 March 2007) 

Moses Williamson
Appellant

-v-
Commission for Social Care Inspection
Respondent
[2006] 718.EA

-Before-

Mr Andrew Lindqvist
(Chairman)
Mr Mike Jobbins
Mr Ken Coleman

DECISION

1.	Fairfield Children’s Home is a community home for up to eight young people between the ages of twelve and sixteen years. It is a purpose built unit run by Birmingham City Council Social Care and Health Department and is registered to care for young people with emotional or behavioural difficulties. Its purpose is primarily to enable the needs of its residents to be assessed prior to their moves to more permanent placements. The young residents of Fairfield are usually very disturbed, having been emotionally or physically abused and often exhibit challenging behaviour on a regular and consistent basis both to each other and to staff. 
2.	Birmingham City Council has employed the appellant, Mr. Moses Williamson, as a  youth leader and then as a social worker since 1986. He went to Fairfield in 1999, when it had premises in Acock’s Green, as acting deputy manager, becoming manager in the following year. To comply with the requirements of the Care Standards Act, Mr Williamson applied to be registered as manager on 26th March 2003 and after an unusually long delay was granted registration on the 22nd June 2005.  In November 2004 Fairfield moved from Acock’s Green to its present home at 260 Reservoir Road in Erdington. .
3.	Inspections of Fairfield were carried out in July 2004, May, August and December 2005 and April 2006. Partly because of concerns raised by some of those inspections, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (“CSCI”) gave notice on the 23rd January 2006 that it proposed to cancel Mr. Williamson’s registration on the grounds that he was not a fit person to manage a children’s home. Specifically CSCI relied on an alleged lack of integrity and good character, failure to ensure that Fairfield was run so as to promote and make proper provision for the welfare of its young people and in a manner which respected their privacy and dignity. 

4.	CSCI considered written representations by Mr. Williamson but nonetheless decided to adopt the proposal and so notified Mr. Williamson by a letter dated 20th April 2006. 
Mr. Williamson appealed on the 12th June and CSCI subsequently set out its reasons for opposing the appeal. They are, broadly, (i) that Mr. Williamson failed to ensure that Fairfield was managed in accordance with regulations and that the welfare of the young people was appropriately safeguarded,  (ii) that Mr. Williamson failed to keep and failed to ensure that others kept proper records and (iii) that Mr. Williamson behaved inappropriately, in particular at a meeting on the 9th August 2005 and in relation to the challenging behaviour of a difficult resident on a number of occasions.
5.	Mr. Williamson’s appeal was heard in Birmingham on the 22nd, 23rd, 26th and 27th February and the 1st and 2nd March 2007. Mr. Alistair MacDonald appeared for CSCI and Mr. Christopher Walker for Mr. Williamson.
6.	At the outset, Mr. Walker renewed an application, first made at an interlocutory stage, for the hearing to be in private and for the Appellant’s identity to be withheld. The application proved to be academic as neither press nor public attended any part of the hearing, but the Tribunal (Chairman) ruled that there was no cause to exclude press or public nor to withhold the Appellant’s identity, but that his address should not be published.
7.	The first witness was Ms. Gillian Sebright, a Principal Officer, Organised and Institutional Abuse for Birmingham City Council. A considerable part of her work is chairing strategy meetings enquiring into concerns about or allegations against persons in positions of trust. Ms. Sebright told the Tribunal of meetings on the 7th and 20th June and 2nd and 9th August 2005 and of her concerns about the management of Fairfield, in particular the lack of incident reports, improper discussion of incidents and incomplete and apparently falsified records. She told the Tribunal about an unannounced visit to Fairfield on the 11th August, agreed that to her knowledge Mr. Williamson had for eighteen years prior to these events managed children well and that resources were generally sparse.
8.	The Tribunal did not find Ms. Sebright to be a wholly convincing witness. She placed great reliance on documents and records and, in the Tribunal’s view, too little on the actual facts and context. By way of example Ms. Sebright said that in the minutes of a meeting held on the 20th June 2005, Mrs. Woods is recorded as saying that during the 24th May inspection of Fairfield, she, Mrs. Woods, did not see a document (no 05542) dated the 16th May. That was the basis of Ms. Sebright’s suggestion of falsification; she did not appear to appreciate that so serious a charge should have been better substantiated. The point was graphically made when Mrs. Woods later admitted that she might not have looked at documents of the category in question on the 24th May.
9.	The second witness, Ms. Wendy Truman was the cook at Fairfield. Her evidence was reduced from the contents of her statement by agreement between counsel. Ms. Truman described the position of the kitchen and the layout of that part of Fairfield. She said that her hours of work were 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., except for a period in June/July 2004 when she had worked from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. She was concerned at the frequency of incidents of restraint of the residents and suggested that the young people might have been provoked into bad behaviour so that restraint could be justified. She informed the Tribunal that her role as cook gave her a degree of rapport with the residents and they would show her bruises and marks which, they said, had been caused during restraint. Ms. Truman said that restraints occurred once or twice a day and she was particularly concerned by what she described as flooring, which was holding a recalcitrant young person down on the floor. She recounted two incidents at the premises in Acock’s Green, so before November 2004, in which Mr. Williamson took off his coat in an apparent threat to a young resident, declining to accept that it might have been done in jest.
10.	Ms. Truman gave a detailed account of an incident on the 16th May 2005 involving DM, one of Fairfield’s more difficult young residents. She referred to some staff members as especially inclined to use physical restraint on the residents (referred to in evidence as “the bad guys”) and was asked what proportion of the staff fell into that category. Somewhat surprisingly she replied at once, “Nine percent” and repeated that figure with some emphasis. In response to the next question, she admitted that she did not know the total number of staff at Fairfield. She agreed that the marks the residents showed her would be visible if short sleeves were worn and that there were a considerable number of visitors to Fairfield, friends, relatives and professionals. She saw the staff as members of a sort of family, from which she, not employed to care for the residents, felt excluded. At Acock’s Green she was unaware of “whistleblowing” procedures but was told after an inspection that details were on the noticeboard at the new premises. Despite her concerns about the treatment of the residents, Ms. Truman made no complaint or report until early October 2005.
11.	The Tribunal found Ms. Truman an unconvincing witness. It was far from satisfied  that, from her vantage point in the kitchen, she had seen everything she claimed to have seen and her choice of nine percent as the proportion of “bad guys” was irrational. Her account of the incident of the 16th May 2005, as will be seen later, was different from that of the other witnesses.  
12.	Mrs. Llyn Woods, the third witness, is an inspector for CSCI with considerable experience and impressive qualifications. She conducted the inspections of Fairfield on the 24/25th May, 11th August and 7th December 2005. On all three occasions she found a number of matters requiring attention. She was present at the meeting on the 9th August and she made considerable and detailed criticism of the management strategies and record keeping at Fairfield. In her oral evidence she provided numerous examples.
13.	The Tribunal found Mrs. Woods to be the most reliable of the respondent’s three witnesses who gave oral evidence, but found her to be somewhat over-reliant on literal interpretation of regulations  though this may have been to do with the system of inspection used at the time. For example she criticised the restraint of DM on an occasion when she apparently threatened to jump from an upstairs window. Staff grabbed DM and carried her to her room. Mrs. Woods thought it inappropriate to carry her to her room, DM should have been released on the floor immediately inside the window so as to allow her to walk to her room, despite the obvious risk of another attempt at the window.
14.	The evidence of Neil Arculus, Regulation Manager, to whom Mrs. Woods reported and that of Alan Dennett, Business Relationship Manager, was not contested; the Tribunal read their statements and they did not give oral evidence.
15.	Mr. Williamson gave oral evidence but called no other witnesses. He struck the Tribunal as a witness who was basically truthful but who could lapse into inaccuracy on occasion. He gave differing accounts of the incident with DM on the 16th May 2005 and was not consistent in his assertions about whether or not his letter of the 29th July 2005 was intended to be an action plan.
16.	It emerged at an early stage in the cross-examination of Mr. Williamson that all was not as it should be with regard to his qualifications. According to his application for registration Mr. Williamson had two necessary qualifications, an NVQ Level 4 (or equivalent) in child care and a similar qualification in management. CSCI (at the time NCSC) has some discretion in the matter of recognised qualifications; for present purposes the exact nature of the qualification in Mr. Williamson’s case is not important. Whatever those qualifications were deemed to be, the Childrens Homes Regulations 2001, reg 8 provides that a person shall not manage a children’s home unless he is fit to do so and that a person is not fit to do so unless he has the necessary qualifications and full and satisfactory information is available in respect of each of the matters set out in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 relates to Information Required and paragraph 5 reads, “Documentary evidence of any relevant qualifications”. 
17.	Mr. Williamson’s evidence was as follows. He had obtained an NVQ Level 4 in child care, but for reasons he did not know, he had never been given the certificate. He had undertaken assessment of Level 3 candidates and could not have done so unless he had passed at Level 4 and/or had the required Assessors award formerly a D32/33 and now known as an A1.. He had attended a course for a Higher Diploma in Management of Care Services and completed all the course work. At the end of the course the facilitator’s father died (and Mr. Williamson’s father was diagnosed with a serious illness), so his last piece of work was never marked and he did not obtain the qualification or any certificate. Quite how he was granted registration without any documentary evidence of qualifications he did not explain; there are certainly letters asking him for the certificates.
18.	It seemed to the Tribunal that, even leaving aside the question of whether Mr. Williamson had achieved the management qualification, the regulations are clear in requiring documentary evidence of qualifications as an essential ingredient of fitness. There was no such documentary evidence in Mr. Williamson’s case, he cannot therefore ever have been a fit person within reg. 8 and it must follow that his registration was not properly granted.
19.	That surprising circumstance would be sufficient to decide Mr. Williamson’s appeal. But the Tribunal considered it appropriate, at the invitation of counsel for each party, to express its findings on the other issues raised by the appeal, partly lest it should later appear that the situation about qualifications and certificates is not as shown by the current evidence.
20.	At an inspection carried out on the 26th July 2004, certain concerns were identified, in particular, the recording of restraints and the monitoring of the home’s performance. An action plan prepared in response by Ms. Nikki Larkin, Deputy Manager, in December 2004 indicated that she would ensure that all staff received training in completing sanction logs and that Mr. Williamson was developing a monitoring system. Before the next inspection, there occurred on the 16th May 2005 the incident already referred to between Mr. Williamson and DM, a disturbed and challenging twelve year old girl.
21.	DM’s own account, given to a Police Officer on the 23rd May 2005, was that she was banging the wall and/or door of the office at Fairfield because she wanted to telephone her grandmother. She said that Mr. Williamson shoved her into the lounge and bruised her arm. Amplifying that later, she said that he grabbed her hands, held her tight up against the wall and put her in the lounge. Later she said that restraint did not hurt or leave bruises and that Mr. Williamson told staff to hold her so that she could not get her shoes. Dave (David Stevenson, a member of staff) was blocking the door. The incident was recorded on a Behaviour Management – Disciplinary Measures form (no. 05542). This is the form referred to in Ms. Sebright’s evidence as a possible forgery. The form was completed and signed by Mr. Stevenson and countersigned by Mr. Williamson. It says that DM refused to leave the office when asked to do so by staff and was shouting and verbally abusive to staff. Mr. Williamson held the lapels of DM’s coat, she was facing him and he walked her to the TV room backwards. DM claimed that a small bruise on her left arm was caused by Mr. Williamson.
22.	Ms. Truman was a witness to the incident. She was in the kitchen and heard some shouting as though DM wanted to visit or phone her grandmother. She saw Mr. Williamson take hold of DM by her lapels or upper body and drag her sideways along the corridor to the lounge, shouting at her as he did so. DM’s feet were dragged along the floor and she was being held at an angle of about 45 degrees to the floor. It was subsequently put to her by the Tribunal that that must mean that Mr. Williamson was bearing DM’s weight and Ms. Truman agreed that he was.
23.	Mr. Williamson’s account of the matter in his written statement was that he put his hands without pressure on DM’s shoulders in the lapel area but did not grab her. DM walked backwards and he followed her, with his hands in the same position, into the lounge, where she sat down on a sofa. In his oral evidence he said that his hands were on DM’s shoulders at the side. He referred to a police interview on the 10th June 2005 in which he had said that he held DM’s clothing above her shoulders.
24.	The daily record (CR8) shows that DM left the unit at 3.50 p.m. and that a telephone call from Queen’s Road police station indicated that she had made a complaint of assault by “staff Moses”. She left the police station without making a statement and returned to the unit at 5.45 p.m. There is a discrepancy in the recording because the form 05542 records the incident as happening at 5.00 (or possibly 5.50 p.m.).
25.	DM’s bruise was examined by Dr. Anil Baxi on the 17th May 2005, the day after the incident. It was 2cm x 3cm, oval in shape, in the middle of the antero lateral aspect of the upper left arm. It could have been a thumb print, there were no finger marks on the back of the arm.
26.	On the 20th June 2005 an enquiry into the incident was held under the chairmanship of Ms. Sebright. By that time DM had retracted her complaint, which put an end to any possible criminal proceedings. Ms. Sebright expressed the view that to take a child by the lapels and walk her backwards was dangerous and inappropriate. There was some suspicion of collusion between staff members at the unit because CSCI had received no regulation 30 notification of the incident. Moreover the restraint form 05542 apparently completed on the 16th May had not been seen by Mrs. Llynn Woods during her inspection on the 24/25th May, giving rise to suspicions of forgery and/or falsification, allayed when it transpired that form 05542 might not “have been subject to inspection scrutiny” by Mrs. Woods. (Some attempt was made, at the hearing of the appeal, to resuscitate suspicion of falsification by reference to the timing discrepancy, but it lacked conviction.)
27.	By way of conclusion Ms. Sebright said that the situation was indicative of institutional abuse and that Mr. Williamson should be subject to a disciplinary investigation. The need for an investigation was agreed and two specific areas were identified – Mr. Williamson’s failure to apply HEART restraint techniques and the use of inappropriate procedures and possible institutional abuse. (HEART is the name given to a locally approved system of training in restraint techniques).
28.	The Tribunal was unable to view this incident with the gravity afforded to it by others, notably Ms. Sebright. One of the features viewed by Ms. Sebright as dangerous and inappropriate, taking by the lapels, was not even mentioned by the victim herself, who retracted the complaint within a couple of days and “did not want to talk about the incident at all” – an unlikely reaction to an incident which she saw as in any way serious, though, of course, the assessment of a vulnerable twelve year old must be approached with some caution. The accounts of the other witnesses varied considerably, with that of Ms Truman being conspicuously different. If Mr. Williamson had taken DM’s weight by the lapels of her coat, as Ms. Truman said, it is hard to see how the result could have been an apparent thumb-print on the front/side of the upper arm. If Mr. Williamson had taken DM’s weight by grasping her arms he might well have caused bruising but not only on the front/side of the arm, more likely on the back, where no marks were in fact found. Guiding a child by the elbow was accepted as permissible and not to be regarded as “restraint”. It seemed to the Tribunal that what took place on the 16th May, although obviously not guiding by the elbow, fell into the same category; the Tribunal could find nothing in that incident to indicate or contribute to a finding of unfitness.
29.	Mrs. Woods carried out an announced inspection at Fairfield on the 24/25thMay 2005. It was then that she failed to see form 05542 dated 16th May, but more significantly, neither the incident nor its consequences were mentioned to Mrs. Woods at that inspection. One of its consequences should have been notification under reg. 30 of the Childrens Homes Regulations 2001 , but no such notification was received by Mrs. Woods. The pre-inspection paper-work had not been completed, as it should have been, prior to inspection; Mr. Williamson did it on the first day of the inspection while his deputy, Ms. Larkin, dealt with the inspection on behalf of the home. Mr. Williamson explained in his evidence that he was busy that morning and Ms. Larkin was keen to gain experience of managerial tasks. The inspector, Mrs. Woods, noted that the monitoring system and staff training set out in the action plan of December 2004 were not yet completed. There needed to be a risk assessment about bullying and written management strategies to cope with challenging behaviour. An Urgent Welfare Issues Form was issued. An action plan was due by the 6th July.
30.	On the 29th July 2005 CSCI received a letter from Mr. Williamson. This was the letter which may have been an action plan, or maybe a mere precursor. As it clearly was not in the form of an action plan, Mrs. Woods telephoned Mr. Williamson and, at his request, wrote to him setting out what was required. The rather surprising response was an action plan written by Ms. Larkin on the 12th August, by which time she was working elsewhere. It was not forwarded to CSCI until the 25th August.
31.	Before then there had occurred another incident which is relied on as indicating Mr. Williamson’s unfitness. On the 28th July 2005 DM complained that a staff member had shut her wrists in a door causing bruising and that another staff member had roughly handled another resident, had not allowed her, DM, to contact her Social Worker, had pushed her causing her to hit her head against a wall and had told her that she should have been drowned at birth. 
32.	This was the subject of another child protection strategy meeting, on the 2nd August, again chaired by Ms. Sebright. It was not possible to carry out much by way of investigation because a) as Mr. Williamson admitted, there were no incident reports at all and b) there had been apparently quite extensive discussion between, and some information gathering by, staff at Fairfield, which led the Chair to “reiterate her dissatisfaction and frustration with the persistent contamination, apparent collusion and breach of confidentiality by staff members at the unit.” Evidently as the result of an oversight, CSCI was not invited to that meeting, so it was adjourned to the 9th August when Mrs. Woods attended.
33.	Mr. Williamson’s conduct at that adjourned meeting is the subject of criticism by the Respondent. Ms. Sebright correctly pointed out in her evidence that the purpose of the meeting was to enquire into the conduct of staff members and DM’s injury. On the other hand Mr. Williamson can be forgiven for a perception of a somewhat hostile atmosphere. The Chair, Ms. Sebright had at the 20th June meeting, expressed the view that he should be subject to a disciplinary investigation. On the 2nd August she had expressed dissatisfaction and frustration about what had happened in the home. The meeting on the 9th August began in a routine way. Before long questions arose about the records from Fairfield, Ms. Sebright referring to three in particular and expressing concerns about them. By the time she reached the third, the patience of Mr. Williamson, who had probably begun the meeting on the defensive, reached breaking point. Both Ms. Sebright and Mrs. Woods say that he became loud and animated, rose to his feet and remonstrated with the Chair. Mr. Williamson, in both his statement and his oral evidence, gave a less dramatic account and said that he felt subjected to provocation and intimidation. His feelings may be a reflection of the respondent’s concession in its closing submissions that Ms. Sebright might be seen as a “robust” witness.
34.	The Tribunal’s finding about that meeting is that Mr. Williamson did behave in a manner much as described by Ms. Sebright and Mrs. Woods. His behaviour was inappropriate, but passions do emerge at meetings of all kinds; it is not always that calm logic holds absolute sway. It was plain to the Tribunal that Mr. Williamson is passionate about his vocation and work and that he ‘lost his cool’ when he felt that that was under attack. That is not to imply any serious criticism of Ms. Sebright who made proper and necessary points at the meetings. The worst that could be said against her is that, as Chair, she might have tried to appear more diplomatic and less robust. But overall, while Mr. Williamson’s behaviour at that meeting did fall short of what was to be expected of one in his position, the Tribunal did not regard that lapse in itself as an indication of unfitness.
35.	Because of CSCI’s concerns aroused or heightened at that meeting, Mrs. Woods undertook an unannounced inspection of Fairfield two days later, accompanied by Ms. Sebright and Mr. Bryan Thompson. It happened to be the day on which Mr. Williamson began his annual leave. The inspector noted a number of deficiencies in the documentation kept at the home and, consequently, in its management. At a very basic level, there were no adequate written care plans and no behaviour management plans for the residents. There was inadequate recording of restraints, complaints and accidents. There were no group compatibility risk assessments and none in relation to bullying. Mr. Williamson’s actions, based on such records as there were, were not adequate to ensure proper running of the home.
36.	Mr. Williamson accepted in his oral evidence that he had not properly discharged his managerial responsibilities in respect of record keeping. He advanced explanations which, in the Tribunal’s view, fell well short of being excuses. Accepting that there was little by way of care plans for the residents, Mr. Williamson was inclined to blame the paucity of information provided with the residents on arrival. While there may well have been something in that, it can excuse neither failure to try to obtain that information nor failure to record the behaviour and apparent needs of the resident in his/her first few days at the home. That should lead to the development of behaviour management strategies and plans – Mr. Williamson did not know why there were none amongst the papers.
37.	In the absence of those fundamentally necessary records, consistent running of the home was impossible. It may very well be that all the staff as individuals are beyond reproach, they still cannot work together unless there is some element of strategy and planning. A team is more than the aggregate of its individual members. It is the direction and guidance needed to make his staff into a team that Mr. Williamson failed to provide and, it must be said, at times seemed to fail to understand. The fact that the home was still without such plans in December 2005, almost three months after Mr. Willliamson’s departure may well cause him some chagrin, but cannot excuse his failings. The situation in respect of restraint recording might be regarded as less grave because, although it is easy to point to deficiencies, records of some kind were kept. 
38.	The same could be said of accident reporting, but not in respect of complaints, where the records were exiguous. In relation to bullying, there was little by way of group compatibility assessments or individual risk assessments. There was evidence from the daily record which suggested that one resident, JJ, was bullied, particularly by DM. While the Tribunal was not sure that JJ was, in fact, subjected to regular bullying, it is clear that there were quite frequent altercations between him and, in particular, DM. That provides a clear example of Mr. Williamson’s management failings; the manager should have detected the problem at an early stage by regular reading of the daily record, discussed it with staff and so decided how to deal with it, or in the applicable jargon, formulated a behaviour management strategy. Mr. Williamson was not able to do this, not least because he did little to ensure regular and effective staff meetings. His own evidence was that he did chair staff meetings but would also delegate that duty to staff members who wanted to gain experience. He accepted that he did not chair any such meeting between December 2004 and his departure on sick leave at the end of September 2005, but said that he had attended such meetings. Be that as it may, there were apparently no minutes of any staff meeting during Mr. Williamson’s management of Fairfield, save for one on the 11th July 2005 when David Stevenson was in the chair and Mr. Williamson was present. 
39.	There was a residents’ meeting on the same day and another on the 12th September, Mr. Williamson did not attend either, according to the minutes. No other minutes of any meeting were available to the Tribunal. Mrs. Woods drew the Tribunal’s attention to other respects in which Mr. Williamson’s management was deficient. There was no evidence of proper staff monitoring. Personal development records for staff, particularly those under Mr. Williamson’s direct supervision  were absent, or at best, deficient. 
40.	Mrs. Woods also drew the Tribunal’s attention to numerous breaches of regulations and National Minimum Standards. While the Tribunal had no reason to doubt what she said, compliance with regulations and standards can often be procured by training and monitoring. Sadly the Tribunal was unable so to find in Mr. Williamson’s case. The record keeping at Fairfield was so far below standard that it frustrated proper running of the home in a way which Mr. Williamson seemed to be unable to grasp. The purpose of records is the recording of information which can be shared and discussed by those in positions of responsibility and used to formulate plans for the management of the home and its challenging young people. 
41.	An example is afforded by Behaviour Management – Disciplinary Measures form no. 05540 of the 12th May 2005. It relates to DM and records her being carried out of the office by her arms and legs. Under “Effectiveness and any consequences of restraint” there is “Changing unruly behaviour. And in order to get what you want to use respectful behaviour and…..”. That form records a form of physical intervention which should not be used (except in very extreme and unusual circumstances), but was used for a purpose for which restraint should not be used. 
42.	Mr. Williamson, reviewing the records regularly, should have noticed that record and brought the matter up at a staff meeting, or privately with those involved. Not only did he do nothing about it and was possibly unaware of the contents of the record (though he had countersigned it), but when questioned by the Tribunal he seemed not to realise that it demanded any action on his part. The same point is made by the respondent in respect of the high number of restraints recorded in the early summer of 2005. In a slightly different vein the Respondent draws attention to the inadequate and deficient recording of Mr. Williamson’s hours of work and attendance at Fairfield.
43.	Mr. Williamson’s answer to these charges of poor management was, largely, inadequate resources and poor support. In some respects his criticisms were justified. There was evidence that the support provided by Mr. Williamson’s line manager, Mr, Bryan Thompson, was not all it should have been, prompting on one occasion a formal expression of grievance by Mr. Williamson. There was evidence that staff turnover was high and that a large number of casual staff were used. Mr. Williamson had no say in decisions about who should be admitted to Fairfield or about his/her length of stay. 
44.	Other aspects of the system were of concern to the Tribunal. One, obviously not relied on by Mr. Williamson was the odd circumstances in which he achieved registration without evidence of his qualifications (and almost certainly in one case, without the qualification itself). Another was the apparent relative lack of reaction to suggestions in the CR8s that girls in their early teens were developing an all-too-early acquaintance with the world of drugs and prostitution. The Tribunal took the view that staffing, resource and support difficulties could not provide an excuse for Mr. Williamson’s failure to deploy management skills. A manager of any kind must expect to be required to deal not only with times when things run smoothly and easily but also with times of adversity. Allowance can fairly be made for lower standards of managerial achievement in times of adversity, but the Tribunal was driven to the conclusion that the poor (and in some instances absent) records at Fairfield and the deficient strategic planning had more to do with a lack of managerial skill on Mr. Williamson’s part than on any lack of resources or support.
45.	Thus the Tribunal found that Mr. Williamson was not a fit person within reg. 8 of the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001 for two reasons. First, that documentary evidence of Mr. Williamson’s qualifications had never been available to the registering authority, contrary to regulation 8(2)(c) and Schedule 2. Second, that Mr. Williamson did not have the skills necessary for managing Fairfield (reg 8(2)(b)(i)). The Tribunal makes no finding that Mr. Williamson is not a person of integrity or good character. On the contrary, the Tribunal was impressed with his long record as a social worker and what appeared his genuine and sincere concern for vulnerable children stemming from his brother’s childhood experiences. The Tribunal makes no finding that Mr. Williamson has harmed, injured or treated inappropriately any child or young person. 
46.	While obliged to express its profound reservations about his managerial skills, the Tribunal makes no finding which might imply that Mr. Williamson should not continue to make a career in social work (in a non-managerial role) with vulnerable young people such as the residents of Fairfield.
47.	The Tribunal accordingly confirms the Respondent’s decision to cancel Mr. Williamson’s registration as manager and dismisses his appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Mr Andrew Lindqvist (Chairman)
Mr Mike Jobbins
Mr Ken Coleman
26th March 2007