Focus area: Appeals

Regulator concerned: Trading Standards (Local Authority)

Comment:
I am a Trading Standards Officer – my job regularly involves giving advice to businesses that don’t agree often because they don’t want to comply or they feel that other businesses are getting away with the same thing.

When it comes to informal advice where I am asking the business to change something they can always complain and a second person can check my advice. Where I get into a debate with someone I will usually check with colleagues to ensure I am correct. I am dubious about having some mechanism which allows a trader to appeal every single piece of advice that they do not agree with. It is of course good practice to explain why they need to do something and I would expect any Trading Standards Officer to provide that information anyway.

One of my concerns is that due to all the budget cuts we are losing specialist and national advice from the likes of bodies like the OFT. This will only lead to a more fragmented system whereby local authorities are providing differing advice which will frustrate businesses because they will see it as unfair if their regulator is providing a harsher view than a neighbouring one.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: Environmental Heath (Local Authority),Health and Safety Executive (HSE),OFSTED

Comment:
We are an organisation with 216 locations in over 100 different local authority areas. As a childcare service provider we are fearful of being criminalised when children suffer injuries that occur during normal play. We have a positive attitude to Health and Safety and are committed to continual improvement that extends beyond our statutory duties. We are the only childcare provider with certification to OHSAS 18001:2007, even so we are concerned it is impossible to prevent some injuries occurring to children. These potentially could be interpreted as contravention of our duties under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. For example with developmental progress ie when toddlers are learning to walk they inevitably fall whilst mastering the art. There is an expectation from some enforcing authorities that even injuries of a minor nature should not occur.
Dual enforcement is common place in respect of health and safety related issues and although the enforcing authorities for our premises are Environmental Health Departments , we have to report accidents to both the enforcing authority and Ofsted.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: Planning ( Local Authority)

Comment:
We are an organisation with 216 locations with over 100 different local authority areas. Following several years of acquisition and integration of various businesses – we have experienced inconsistencies relating to the Enforcement of Planning legislation and its interpretation.
Initially, there are often variations of classification of building use, when our occupation should be consistently the same as a childcare provider.
Following several rebranding exercises we find that the subject of signage for example, is almost entirely a local issue, dealt with at a local level and tends to be variable across the United Kingdom.
Planning Officers and committees have discretionary choice over the proposed schemes. There is not a clear set of rules which apply nationally which applications can be submitted against, when presenting signage submissions of a standard nature.
The situation is that schemes are accepted by some and not others in a similar environmental location. Therefore the process can be protracted.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
Two years ago I had my first Ofsted inspection. It was a fast and furious inspection lasting only one day. Ofsted inspections are far too short for Early Years settings especially because the dynamics changes day to day as the children can change day to day: and in some smaller settings even the staff change. To be able to go through paperwork, documents, interview, observe, speak to parents, staff, committee and children and observe practice cannot possibly happen all in one day. I would therefore like to request that Ofsted review their inspections of Early Years settings and consider extending them to at least 2 days instead of 1.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: Local Authority or Fire Authority

Comment:
Local Authority Early Years and Childcare Services/ Early Years Advisors. I would like to know who moderates the competencies of these LA employees please? I have had some difficult situations to deal with in the past and have found that many of these professionals do not have the expertise or the knowledge to support/advise or help and have found myself alone in dealing with employment/staffing/safeguarding/good practice issues. It seems that they shy away from their responsibilities to support us and I have often been made to feel completely alone when dealing with extremely serious matters as I have found their responses or lack of knowledge to be either critical, non-supportive or misguiding. I would like to know why, when there is so much being invested in this area, the knowledgeable support is lacking and who do I, as a a manger, turn to for advice or support in the light of these failings? I therefore agree that the sector needs a more centralised, professional and highly knowledgeable body which does not give out contradictory and confusing messages or advice.
Training Providers: I would like to know how training providers are moderated properly? Why is there not a general code of conduct/practice for Early Years Training providers and their assessors and if there is why is it inaccessible to the Early Years sectors. Again I have requested support and advice from my EYCA who responds with ‘I believe’, ‘I think’. This is not professional advice just hypothesis and we cannot work legally and professionally on hypothetical guidance. We need clarity, knowledgeable support and competency in the advisory sector.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
As a manager of a rural Pre-School undertaking the Early Years foundation degree (part time and hoping to start the honours year in September – again part time), I do get frustrated when professionals researching and working within the sector, provide pedagogical advice which the government then ‘cherry picks’ from, seemingly ignoring some of the fundamental features. For example, 1.9 of the statutory requirements state that ‘each area of learning and development must be implemented through… a mix of adult-led and child-initiated activity’, acknowledging that the proportions of child-initiated and adult-led change as the child approaches the end of the foundation stage, however Elizabeth Truss (who has many areas of expertise but pedagogy is not one) speaking at the Policy Exchange on childcare (Jan 2013) stated that “we think teacher-led groups with structured activities are a good thing. Ofsted has made it clear that they do to”. Even though I personally disagree with too many ‘group and structured activities’ I will now be pressurised into providing them in order to satisfy Ofsted (I hasten to add the pressure will be met with quality referencing of research disputing that fact).
Elizabeth Truss also states that parents deserve the right to be able to choose this type of environment, however as the majority of parents who access my setting are not in the financial position to afford private nurseries, where will their choice be if the settings they can afford to use are being pressurised into meet Ofsted’s desired outcomes. What if they do not want their two year old to be directed towards repeated adult-led activities?
Within the Pre-School sector we are constantly being told about ‘best practice’, ‘enabling environments’ and ‘high quality workforce’ and we are expected to achieve the same standards as foundation units within schools or nursery units, however we do not operate within the same parameters; voluntary organisations, operating often in shared community buildings, trying to juggle staffing costs and retain-ability against variable term time work patterns and poor pay, supported by a committee of parents who may or may not want to be there, who may or may not have relative experience, and who may or may not be there the following year.
The list goes on, but as I said, I am trying to complete the degree in Early Years education, whilst managing the Pre-School and having a life somewhere in between, and I have an essay due on Friday – before travelling 3+ hours to attend the Education show to ensure I stay as up-to-date as possible with current practices and innovations.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:

I am a local authority worker supporting childminders. The government criticise LAs for asking childcare providers to undertake work that is additional to national requirements yet what is not appreciated is that the LA is monitored against the Ofsted outcomes that their providers achieve and these results are published. Ofsted acknowledge that the national requirements (EYFS) are minimum standards and therefore recommend that providers undertake additional tasks to demonstrate high quality. These recommendations are made at inspection and included in any published reports. As a result the LA monitors trends and is duty bound to support providers to meet these additional expectations in order to secure the best possible outcome at inspection.

This is often not appreciated. The LA is being led by Ofsted’s advice to providers and not creating our own additional expectations.

Unfortunately, this issue is currently being cited by Elizabeth Truss MP and Ofsted as a basis for introducing Childminder Agencies. Very unfair.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
Starting off with Registration I had a very good experience of registering with Ofsted. This was in part due to the support I was given by my local authority, who insist that Childminders have to complete a 8 week course with the council, and then they came out prior to registration with Ofsted and did 2 checks – one of my home and the other to do with paperwork and knowledge of EYFS. Therefore when Ofsted came out I was well prepared and ready, and the Ofsted inspector was really helpful and supportive and gave lots of advice. My documentation was very straight forward but I am aware of issues relating to hold-ups with documentation with social services and police.

When it came to my first inspection Ofsted were once again efficient in their communication with me prior to attending and answered some questions I had. Again the inspector was helpful and supportive, and understood that I could not give her my full attention as I had three little children to care for at the same time.

My issue with the inspection process comes from the way each inspector can have their own ideas and there seems to be no understanding of how a Childminder works. For example I was marked down in one area due to not having any evidence of sharing with other settings, but this was not due to me ignoring this part of my role it was due to the fact that the 3 young children in my care did not attend another setting. Therefore there was no way I could have this evidence. I now know from the local pre-schools and nurseries I deal with that they never share information with myself, however their Ofsted reports do say this fact. I believe in this instance that Ofsted do not treat Childminders and larger non-domestic settings the same.

Another example of Ofsted not fully understanding the role of a Childminder is the well documented comment on Childminder forums – Ofsted inspector comes into a childminding setting and claims before the inspection even starts that a Childminder setting cannot get Outstanding, or as its your first inspection you can not get more than satisfactory. These comments are not made to larger non-domestic settings.

Childminders follow the same EYFS and all statutory guidance as do other childcare settings so there is no reason for us not to be inspected in the same light as other settings.

Ofsted also seem to forget that we are home based childcare and that parents choose us because we are not a large nursery setting. They want their child to learn through a smaller group, with closer key worker contact and learn through play situations. However Ofsted seem to feel that we need to have our home turned into a nursery in order to deliver all of the EYFS.

Parents value the fact that I have a Ofsted inspection the same as a nursery, so they know that their child is getting the best start in life, however the inspection process needs to understand the benefits that a home from home setting can bring to a child rather than trying to turn us all into nurseries.

I believe that support to Childminders is greatly lacking from both Ofsted and the LA. In the case of Ofsted they treat us like the poor second cousin. In the case of the LA, they put most of the resources into courses for nurseries and inspecting nurseries. However I have just been to a recent LA Childminding Partnership Network meeting where my local authority has set out plans to change the way they support Childminders as they even admitted themselves they had lacked in this area. Moving forward they hope to introduce a tiered system, which gives different levels of support depending on who needs them, better training with some targeted at Childminders, and help us join up with other Childminders to create support networks. This support for me as a Childminder would be terrific as it allows me to still be independent, however having dedicated support when needed. It is important for me to have support from Early Years Officers who understand the role of a Childminder and who are only interested in raising outcomes of children.
My local authority have been knowledgeable about others areas that we have to comply with, however not all of these help to raise outcomes for children.

For example as a home Childminder I have to register as a food business and complete a temperature log every day, fill in a file about which foods I am throwing out etc. I have never had a problem with my fridge and if I did I would instantly buy a new one as I need it for my families food as well as my mindees, and if I find food out of date in the fridge I automatically throw it in the bin, and don’t see how filling this in on a log form proves anything.

The biggest issue I face right now is the DfE does not make it easy for me to offer FEEF (Free Early Years Education Funding). Nurseries can simply just offer this to all three and four year olds, whereas as a Childminder it is not clear cut, therefore LA have to create additional paperwork in order to comply with DfE, which means lots of Childminders are unable to offer this funding. With the new 2 year old proposition coming in and studies showing that these vulnerable children would be best placed in a home from home environment then it is important that it is clearly wrote in DfE documents that all childcare settings can offer FEEF as long as Good or Outstanding in their Ofsted Grade. However I am very aware that if I take on 2 year olds then I will need the right support from my LA in order to make sure that the family is offered all of the correct support to help raise the outcomes for the child.

My LA also plays an important part in my training. As a self-employed Childminder I do not have the funds nor the time in the day to attend training session that are put on by outside companies, therefore I rely on the courses put on at night by my LA to develop me and to help me raise outcomes for children. It is my LA wish that in the future they will put on more varied courses for Childminders, as they do for nurseries, to give us all equal footings in the childcare sector.

I do not think that Ofsted requirements are excessive, and in fact I have cut down a lot of my paperwork since the EYFS 2012 was introduced. I just think in a ideal world Ofsted inspectors would have a better grasp of the benefits of Childminders and this would be reflected when we are inspected.

If I have to be honest I do not feel that Ofsted is the right enforcement officer for any Early Years setting and in fact it should all be done on a much more local level, where the local people would know the settings, know the business, and would also be able to do lots of unannounced visits as I believe this is the only way risks will be better managed. However if Ofsted remain for individual inspections for nurseries and pre-schools, then it is really important that Childminders are given the same stamp of approval in order to not create fear in the market, with parents preferring to choose a setting that has a individual Ofsted inspection as they feel it is safer.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
Changes to the law regarding ratios within an early years setting:
it is my understanding the changes will allow a level 3 qualified member of staff to care for 4 children under 2:as an early years provider I consider the changes could have a negative impact on the health and safety of individual children and staff; there is a potential to place children and staff in an environment where the individual child’s care is not paramount. I will not be changing my current good practice, I have discussed the proposed changes with my staff and they agree that the added pressure could have potential detrimental affects to the health and safety and well being of individual children. The considered changes surely are not being discussed with early years practitioners. why not discuss these changes while carrying out hands on research in an early years setting, this may change reviewers ideas.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
In my personal inspections of my childminding setting – I have always been happy with the inspectors judgement – my only issue has been with the time the inspector has been in my setting – each time between 4 and 5 hours.This I feel is too long and puts a strain on the day when as a childminder I work alone – and so the children also experience 4 or 5 hours of an inspectors attention.

However in my previous role working for the local authority – and now as a professional contact for many colleagues – my main concern is inconsistencies and inspectors own personal viewpoints being expressed. I am also concerned about the continued use of statements from the non statutory document – Developments Matters as recommendations or actions.

However I must stress that in my opinion Ofsted are continuing to make improvements in being consistent and I feel that if more early years trained inspectors were employed that things would improve further.

I think that to remove direct Ofsted inspection as a compulsory part of the statutory framework would be a major mistake and would create a 2 tier system that would be difficult to maintain quality control over

Focus area: Appeals

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:

We had our latest OFSTED inspection done by a third party company [deleted text] not actual staff employed by OFSTED in December 2012 and felt that the inspector was extremely negative in her approach. Upon criteria we thought we were meeting the inspector said otherwise we were not given the chance to show evidence to the contrary. She blatantly accused a member of staff in the summing up of not having information about a child in her care, however we have a witness to prove otherwise. I could have given this member of staff a disciplinary action if I hadn’t have had the witness and could have possibly lost a valued member of staff in the process! The report was extremely negative and very misleading with comments that had no argument to back anything up. From this very demotivating experience, I placed a formal complaint and someone from [deleted text] carried out an investigation which I have to say I was not happy about. I still feel they could not be truly objective as we were calling one of there staff’s inspection techniques in to question. I received a reply letter back and was basically told my appeal could not be upheld! I have since gone to second stage appeal with Ofsted and have yet again written a lengthy letter to them. I am hoping that our appeal will be given more consideration as the ‘investigation’ from [deleted text] didn’t answer most of the points in question from my original complaint letter. I feel OFSTED need to re-evaluate the third party company they use and make sure all the inspectors are working to the same guidelines!

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function,OFSTED

Comment:
I do not feel it is fair that schools can just set an after school provision without first having to register separately with Ofsted.This provision is only inspected when the school has its next Ofsted inspection – also there is no requirement for them to do EYFS observations (presumably as they are already done during the day). They are always given notice of their Ofsted inspection.
As a private provider who used to be in a school I had to be registered with Ofsted, had unannounced inspections and had to do EYFS observations. I now provide my out of school and holiday club service in a church hall and we provide good high quality care and play activities for the children. I feel we should be given the same opportunities as the school i.e. Notice of our inspection ( this used to happen under the old Social Services Registration and in the early days with Ofsted). Take away the need for us to do observations on EYFS children and sharing information with schools – it takes staff away from doing valuable play and playwork with the children. Also the schools are NOT interested in any information/observations that we as playworkers provide
unless it is information of a child protection nature. Most times anything we provide ends up being discarded and not being used in any way in promoting the child’s development.
All our organisations – school, after school and holiday clubs etc have the needs of the child as paramount at all times, yet we are not accorded the same equal rights within the regulations.
I do feel there is a need for Ofsted to employ inspectors who have experience in Play and Playwork. A lot of my colleagues in this sector have mentioned when they have had their inspection – Ofsted is mainly interested in the EYFS children and how the setting meets their needs. Sometimes the inspection has not taken place if there are no EYFS children present or been given only a satisfactory marking. What about the other under 8s?
Anyone working in the Playwork field is usually doing it because it is something they love doing. Lets keep it playful, fun and enjoyable for children, parents and playworkers

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
This comment is in relation to proposed changes to childcare, it is my understanding that the government is proposing that childminders be allowed to look after 6 children under 5 instead of 3. It is my professional opinion that this would only lead to disaster, and would not, as has been suggested reduce childcare costs, more children means more resources and more space and a larger car. Everything needs to stay as it is and we need to be left alone to do what we do best

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:

My experience was in 2006, when Ofsted received a malicious complaint against me and my childcare business which was run from my home.

Right from the start I was deamed guilty of all reported to Ofsted, and from day one I felt I needed to take the matter as far as possible to clear my name as none of this was true.

Although Social Services and the Police found ‘no case to answer’ Ofsted took this further and I was suspended and then cancelled my registration!

Having always thought that Ofsted as my regulator were there first and foremost to give help and assistance to childminders etc. but this could not have been more wrong!

Infortunately this is such a long drawn out story I feel this is impossible to explain in writing and therefore feel it would be beneficial for both sides – for

my husband (who was most supportive to me) and I to be given the chance to speak with yourself about the way in which we were dealt with during the three years in which we fought the case. For instance, the first dealings we had on day one started off with intimidation and continued throughout. In most cases I feel this is used with the intention to scare people into giving up. This we did not do, and we had dealings with all and sundry including two directors of Ofsted, our MP [deleted text] and the one person who in the end actually managed to help [deleted text] and who invited us to meet with her in her London office which actually lasted two hours. This led to my being given a waiver and I was re-registered – all too late of course after losing my very successful business, and being taken to hell and back.

I am sure if you want to confirm any of my story that you could speak to members of council staff who I am sure will remember this happening to me -

and who were very helpful but were all very much overshadowed by Ofsted. I will never get over this episode of my life, but think that many changes have been made due to our struggle , and will continue to be made.

I do hope that you will make the time to speak directly to me and my husband either at your office or you would be very welcome to come along to my house. Please ring me on [deleted text]. There is much to talk about, which I am sure will be of great benefit for others to know about how to deal with Ofsted.

Previously when trying to do this with members of the childcare staff I have

been quietly told to be careful not to let other childminders, for instance, know about my experience as they don’t want to upset them. Surely this is wrong as it would have been a great help to me if I had known this when it happened to me. So surely it is best for people to know?

I very much hope to hear from you shortly.

(I have been contacted by council employees approx. two years ago, when another childminder had a similar situation as we had, and was asked to talk to them as it appeared they felt I could help them more as I had been through it myself and could pass on my help. This we of course did, and the people managed to appeal quickly against Ofsted decision about 21 reasons to cancel of which the appeal judge found in favour of the childminder in 20.

I can assure you that you will not believe what we had to go through, and most people are so intimidated they give up. Ofsted just were so shocked that someone had stood up to them – and just continued to lie and fabricate information in the hope of scaring us off. They cannot bear to be proved wrong.

Looking forward to hearing from you, – as I feel sure that people would very much benefit from hearing our story.

Regards, Marjorie McGrath.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
As a childminder, I am commited to offering quality childcare and the best possible service to the families I work with. Our regulatory body, Ofsted currently carries out regular [or not so regular depending on which way the wind is blowing!] inspections. I think I speak for a lot of childminders when I say that we often find ourselves frustrated by the continual inconsistencies in the inspection process.
I work hard to ensure I comply with all current legislation, however very often we are not told what the legislation actually says! We are pretty much left to our own devices!
Ofsted will come to my home and tell me I should be doing x and y. The problem is that I didn’t know! There doesn’t appear to be anyone to tell me! Most of the information regarding childminder’s legal obligations has been gleaned from the internet!
A sad state of affairs indeed.
With regard to inspections, there needs to be a defiintive list of obligations/legal requirements that all childminders need to adhere to. Currently there doesn’t appear to be. Many inspectors tell different childminders different things! There is no consistency at all.
Example: A colleague was advised at her inspection to prepare a laminated risk ass ‘tick sheet’ to use on a daily basis. I was told my laminated tick sheet wasn’t acceptable!
It is a nonsense!
I am passionate about what I do and endeavour to do the best job I can. I also try my very best to keep up with changes in requirements and good practice.
I am finding that this is increasingly difficult.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
As an early years provider I fully support the enforcement of the legal requirements which are in place to drive up the standards of early years provision and ensure that children are protected, and their safety and well-being maintained at all times. There are times however, when I feel bureaucracy makes unnecessary restrictions and each case should be taken individually. I work with two other childminders and although we do not want to increase the numbers of children we can care for, we want to continue to provide care for an older child who has intimate care needs. In order to give us the freedom when we are out on trips etc we need an extra person, taking us up to 4 adults even, sometimes for only 1 day a week in the school holidays. After consulting Ofsted, because childminders are restricted to 3 adults working together at once, we have had to register to be childcare on domestic premises and have dual registration so that we can have an extra person. It seems silly when these are exceptional circumstances.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
Ofsted are the only regulatory and enforcement body for the childcare sector. There is a perception that local authorities have a role in this, but they do not. Their function is one of advice, guidance and training provision. This is equally if not more important because Ofsted see a childcare provider once every 4 years and do not have a continuing role in the quality of care.

At the moment local authorities have to decide which providers can access nursery education funding. They base their decision on the quality of care and education. They are best placed to do this as Ofsted do not know the settings well enough, (one visit every 4 years).

These arrangements are currently under consultation and it is likely that access to NEF will be determined by Ofsted. Does this mean that they will also take on the adisory role? So they will inspect their own advice? Isn’t that what we did ten years ago and we decided it wasn’t a good idea, so we split the functions? They will visit every term like the local authority? I doubt it.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function,Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO),OFSTED

Comment:
I am an accredited childminder based in Suffolk

I am writing to comment on the way childminders are supported and regulated in Suffolk

I have been childminding since the time of the changeover from LA to Ofsted control – something I can only see as a positive until a few years ago

Our LA a few years ago was fantastic – we had a strong network and offered a support scheme to new childminders, a bursary on becoming a minder was also available which was essential. Training courses were subsidised such as first aid and the rest at a lower cost and available via training brochures

Fast forward to now – there are members of staff within the LA who are amazing (for me personally [text deleted] is extremely knowledgeable and professional and SCC is lucky to have such an employee) but the budget constraints mean they no longer have the sufficient time for network monitoring visits, we rarely have network meetings (and when we do they are not at suitable venues or times). The support scheme and start up grant for new minders have ceased – so they are out ‘on a limb’ with no support which is essential when becoming a childminder.

Training brochures have been replaced with CPD online – which is more of a guessing game with a ‘needle in a haystack’ to find any course so often as not minders just dont bother anymore. First aid is mandatory – yet we have to find it now ourself.

To me this all seems to be down to a lack of budet for SCC…….

The government solutions? Well thats really confusing…

Their suggestions for childminders to increase their ratios which will be lower costs for parents – simply it wont – there are not enough children now requiring care so it will simply put minders in rural areas out of business as well as some within the towns

Childminder Agencies – I have spoken to many childminders and I have not found a single one who WANTS to join an Agency – if we had the old support scheme for new childminders that would be sufficient – it worked pure and simple

Why do we not want agencies? Simple = we dont want to be employed, we want to run out own business in our own way, we want to dictate our own fees and hours, we dont want to pay any % of our already small income to an agency

ICO – we have to pay them £35 a year because we have to take photos for LJs and development – surely something can be done with this revenue as we have to pay this on top of an Ofsted fee each year?

Accredited childminders – why dont you pay us the same amount as we get in other areas? SCC gets the same revenue from the government as other LAs yet you dont pass it onto providers (but in Norfolk some 10 miles away they do – doesnt really seem right)

Ofsted are good regulators and SHOULD regulate all day care – why? consistency…. but they need to have specific guidelines so all inspectors mark the same way that way a grading is a consistent grading throughout the country and there are no ‘soft’ grades for childcare. I work hard to maintain my levels and standards and this should be reflected in my grades

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
I think that the extent to which compliance and enforcement activity in childcare and pre-school education is proportionate to the risks it seeks to mitigate. I already have concerns about Ofsted ‘moving away’ from regulating variations to ratios and giving this responsibility to childminders as although some will do so responsibly the system is open to “overminding” and not subject to enough scrutiny – i.e. unless a member of the public reports the minder for overminding – who will know. This is why I have such concerns about the new ratio proposals which almost give free reign to have this number but then add more to a limit of 6 under 8′s – potentially which could be 6 children under 5 or 3! This has huge safeguarding implications.

The advice from Ofsted and my early years team have been crucial, however, I have had to seek further clarification from support forums and colleagues. This is due to cuts to the early years teams. If these teams go and ‘agencies’ replace them, where is the monitoring, the observation. It seems pretty much anyone can set up as an agency – that does not guarantee quality of advice, quality of monitoring local practice and quality and I can only see this as worse model. Ofsted already only do inspections every couple of years. This cannot be replaced by an agency – unless the agency is run by the equivalent of the early years qualified staff the local authorities have or they are qualified early years inspectors. I don’t like the idea that a childminder or nursery can set up as an agency with no higher qualifications in early years, nor in inspectign, assessing or delivering advice.
There is no overlaps, gaps and coordination between multiple regulatory regimes , the LA pick up the “on the ground” informal monitoring of chilldminders between ofsted inspections. Currently mine is 4 years and it is due. In the interim, I have undertaken voluntary assessments from the early years team, joined a network locally and taken training courses offered by the local authority. They don’t assess unless its voluntarily requested but they do have their ear to the ground to visit minders or groups where they feel there are issues. Ofsted, nor agencies wouldn’t have the over-arching local knowledge to do this.

The only unnecessary regulation I feel is the onerous amount of paperwork which has been somewhat redressed by the revised EYFS. Regulatory compliance is necessary in order to safeguard children, it is right that any perceived lack of adhering to these warrants investigation.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
i have been in childcare for over 25 yrs, the past 10 years as an ofsted registered childminder and am graded as outstanding.

the ofsted process for registering childminders seems good to me. hopeful childminders have to pass their CYPOP5, and have peadiatric first aid and then contact ofsted to be considered. this stops people doing it just for some ‘easy money’ who are not committed to childcare.

i think ofsted need more authority to deal with people who care for children beyond legal allowances, such as paid for under 2 hrs.

i think ofsted manage enforcement well, understanding that some complaints are malicious relating to financial or contractual issues or even just malicious people.

oftsed manage inspections well. my parents like that i have my own individual inspection. notice of inspection is given and within a couple of weeks a written report is provided. the childminder is given a verbal report at the time of inspection. inspectors all have the same guide/handbook, although some do not follow it as closely as others.

i get advice from Ofsted and my LA (who are fantastic and provide excellent support, advice & training. north yorkshire)

My LA is very supportive and does not require me to do anything or use anything other than the paperwork that is already put in place by ofsted, apart from a form to claim the funding for 2, 3& 4 yr olds. they are always at the end of the phone, email or as a ‘real person’ to visit and advise and support whatever the concern i have is.

my LA offer a variety of training courses, both weekday and saturdays, recognising that childminders work during the week and can’t just go to training, leaving parents without care. leading (acrediated) childminders have a training session each term to meet up and network at, as well as discuss and share ideas. training courses and conferences are always interesting, with valuable speakers and sometimes resources to take away and use in our settings. the childrens centres host childminder drop in groups each month, that are open to all childminders. they offer information events for people considering childminding, and the childcare suffiency support officers are also there to support anyone wanting to become a childminder.

i don’t think Ofsted and local authority requirements are excessive as we need to have first aid and safeguarding training for the safety of the children we care for. i am registered with environmental health, but they do not make any demands on childminders, wishing purely to know that we deal with food.

The ‘More Great Childcare’ plan talks about Ofsted as the ‘sole arbiter of quality’. i do not want a situation where Ofsted are the only people i can call on for support? as they are not local, do not know the local situation and are not ‘on the ground’. that is why my LA is so great, as they understand the rural area in which we live & work, the isolation of many childminders and support us all admirably. i want experienced, knowledgable people to support me.

The plan talks about ‘moving from process to outcomes’.we focus what we do on the outcomes for children – the whole campaign against the ‘More Great Childcare’ plan is based around the risks to children’s outcomes if the plan goes ahead. What they are paving the way for here is making changes to eg the floor space requirements so they can fit more 2 year olds into small rooms which is ridiculous as children need room to move and play. also increasing ratios for qualified staff – being qualified does not give you more arms or eyes to look after the children. small ( in fact ALL ) children need lots of individual attention and care as that is how they develop to the be the best they can.

The ‘More Great Childcare’ plan talks about agencies delivering’ intensive support to childminders, with regular monitoring visits and training.’ i do not need even more input into your provision than i already get from my local authority? i am VERY concerned that agencies will either increse the paperwork and ‘hoops’ that childminders have to do, to fit in with their expectations and to help the agency do well with ofsted. the alternative is very concerning as well as it maybe that agencies will take a fee and do very little to support childminders, looking to place children within their own settings and ‘down grading’ childminders to just doing the ‘difficult’ hours that they don’t offer – perhaps the wraparound care for a nursery so 6-8am and then 6-8pm or more, as childminders are ‘flexible’ and people forget that we all have families and a family life as well, and our flexibility is up to us, not what an agency might tell us to do.

There is a suggestion in one of the Govt documents (the Children and Families Bill) that newly registering childminders might only be able to register through agencies. i am concerned about this as this could mean that LAs do not support new childminders; how are new childminders to be supported and learn the job when the agency is new its self, maynot understand, appreciate or know anything about childminders. i am concerned that more people may register as a childminder thinking it is an ‘easy option’ but it is not for everyone, and without support it is very hard to do this job. my other concern is that LAs are aware of the sustainability and what childcare needs there are in their areas, the risk is that agencies will flood the market with childminders, offering a lower quality of care, due to less training and support, with less experience. if agencies were to then allow these newly qualified childminders to offer funding to vulnerable 2 yr olds, then it is an accident waiting to happen. these children in particular need alot of care & attention, and it is not just the child, it is supporting the whole family. it needs an experienced childmidner to do this;plus one who knows where & how to access support when necessary.

The ‘More Great Childcare document states that agencies will help remove barriers between home-based care and higher quality group provision” which suggests that home based childcare is not currently a high quality provision. The document also states that childminders ‘lag behind’ other providers. i am furious about the assumption and implication that childminders are ‘second best’. i have over 25 yrs childcare experience, am NNEB, and then took a childcare level 3 NVQ. i am montessori trained and attend many interesting and varied training courses to keep my knowledge up to date, as well as reading professional journals and sharing with other professional childminders. i have a young family, and when time and finances allow ( in that funding for anyone over 24 is a disgrace as there is none ) i want to complete a degree in early years. i am more qualified and attend more training than many staff in local nurseries. i also have a higher ofsted grade than any of the local nurseries. i offer my children an amazing place to come & learn, with a vast array of opportunities and experiences, both within my home, the local community and out & about within the world. how can being put in a room with 10 or more other small children of a similar age be of any benefit to a small child? i care for 3 or 4 children at a time and i can respond immediately to their individual needs. we don’t all have to do pianting ‘because its painting time’ or all go outside because its ‘playtime’. my plans can change at the drop of a hat. if its a sunny day we could go to the beach, or very windy we can make kites to fly. one morning we saw a bus on our way home from school … so we got on the bus and had an adventure! the other day we were reading a book and in that book a character made some biscuits. one child was entranced by this, so we made a shopping list, went to the shop, bought the ingredients, came home and made ( and ate ) the biscuits. that is responding to the childs individual interests & learning, not group care where everything has to be planned to the nth degree. my parents are very happy with the care their children receive and stay with me to receive their funded hours as i provide more than they would get elsewhere.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
The inspections are way too long over 2 hours when it can ( from own experience ) be done within 30 minutes. therefore holding us up doingOUR JOB

OFSTED inspectors should have had childminding experience so they can relate to us.

Too many changes in such short time i.e EYFS

ICO fees is wrong when they WANT us to take photographic proof why should we be made to pay £35 annually because we HAVE to take photos when we have POLICIES in place for this.

Whistleblowing is a waste of time – have done this and nothing happened

Local authorities i.e [text deleted] childcare services is a joke when trying to do training as they take forever to reply and we get penalised for this

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
Upon registering with Ofsted initially I ticked ‘do not contact’ on one of my two referees. Ofsted contacted them and it caused friction, disappointment and embarrassment on my part. Upon being inspected for the first time I had my grading dropped from Good to Satisfactory. Overall I am dissatisfied with my experience with Ofsted.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
Our last inspection went well. I was away but my manager was there. The Ofsted inspector was very chatty and reasuring, pleased that we were welcoming. Our planning for learning was excellent the link from the plans to the children’s learning journeys and back again showed clearly. The only thing she could find for us to improve on was more wind chimes in the front garden. (We have lots out the back, and generally play there,unless the ground is slippery) yet we still only got a ‘ Good’ outcome.

I was a bit confused because a setting nearby had not got the link between plans and journeys and did have to make an action plan, but still got outstanding.

So I feel the criteria for these grades needs to be more specific so we know what to work for and its not just the inspectors opinion

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
I work in a Sure Start Children’s Centre and have worked in these services for three years. From my experience, it feels that a lot of the staff feel anxious about being assessed by Ofsted. The managers particulalry feel this pressure and then this is passed onto the front-line staff. The focus on getting evidence of the impact of our services seems to be too emphasized, when staff should primarily concentrate on delivery a quality service. I would like to see the pressure placed on Children’s Centre to demonstrate their effectivness during an inspection reduced.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:
I know of 3 childminders [deleted text] who were inspected recently who all continued to be registered and the inspection was passed.

None of them had current first aid or child protection training which is a statutory requirement of continuing to be registered, never mind having them at inspection. Although there were asked questions relating to first aid and child protection incidents, there were not asked when there last training was or to produce an “in date” certificate. This is not the first instance of this and is of great concern regarding children’s safety and well being.

Focus area: Childcare

Regulator concerned: OFSTED

Comment:

Under the revised Ofsted inspection framework, it is now the case that any complaint received by them and not assessed as minor, results in an unannounced investigative visit to the childcare provider to ascertain whether the provider is meeting the relevant standards and a full inspection, to put the area of complaint into context. I have received 2 such visits to 2 of my settings within a 4 week period. On both occasions, the inspectors satisfied themselves that we are meeting the standards and we were adjudged to be ‘Outstanding’ again (in 1 case, for the 3rd time) in the subsequent inspection, in both cases. Whilst I fully understand and agree that all complaints have to be investigated objectively, I believe that there must also be a degree of proportionality. The facts of the complaints in our case could have been checked simply by a telephone call. One emanated from our neighbour who continues to conduct a campaign against the nursery to try and close us down. An example of his submission to Ofsted was ‘that we employ a male practitioner who “bellows” at the children and uses inappropriate language – “the last one in is a rotten egg”.’ He is a gently spoken man who was playfully engaging with after-school children. Did this warrant the £1,500 cost of a full inspection of a setting judged ‘Outstanding’ less than 2 years previously? The complaints in the second case were similarly easy to check eg “the provider does not use medicine forms” – We do.

Should Ofsted receive another complaint related to either of these settings, they are obliged to revisit and reinspect, as I understand it. Can there not be provision for some common sense to be applied in such cases? Yes, children’s safety has to be paramount but I believe that the current system is not making the best use of inspectors’ time (and public funding) and that it should not be necessary in cases where, for example, a check with the local authority might provide an assessment of the safeguarding history of any provider and the context for complaints. I also don’t believe that Ofsted, or their agents have the resources available to staff repeated investigations/inspections of this nature.

Focus area: Appeals

Regulator concerned: Environment Agency,Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Comment:
We are grateful for the opportunity to respond to this consultation. Cristal (http://www.cristal.com) is the world’s second largest manufacturer of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2), the largest producer of merchant titanium chemicals and the leading manufacturer of specialty titanium products globally.
BACKGROUND ON CRISTAL:
Cristal’s plant at Stallingborough, near Immingham specialises in manufacturing Titanium Dioxide, the bright white powder made from titanium ore that has the ability to pigment virtually any material. TiO2 makes possible the opacity, brightness and durability in paint formulas and is also used in such diverse products as printing inks, paper, ceramics, glass, leather, synthetic fibres and colours used for artists’ paints. Cristal is one of just two manufacturers of TiO2 in the UK. We employ over 450 highly skilled professionals in manufacturing and R&D (including 30 apprentices) and support a further 170 contractors, and our parent company based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia is committed to long-term investment in the UK. Turnover in 2011 was close to £300m.
Globally, Cristal is in the top quartile of chemical companies in safety performance. Our “Journey to Zero” programme is in place to ensure that all senior leaders know how to facilitate and sustain Cristal’s Safety Culture. We believe that all workplace injuries, illnesses and adverse environmental impacts are preventable: we will never accept them. We are continually improving our environmental performance, from waste disposal to sustainable product development.

CRISTAL’S EXPERIENCE AND CONCERNS AROUND THE REGULATORY APPEALS MECHANISMS:
Cristal’s Stallingborough facility is a top-tier COMAH site and accordingly we receive regular, in-depth inspections from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Decisions taken by these regulators normally follow close discussion with Cristal’s experts. If we disagree with an initial decision, the inspector and their team of technical experts are usually open to further discussion, particularly if the decision is highly technical in nature for demonstrating that risk is ALARP. Our experience is that this “informal appeal” process generally works well with constructive and satisfactory outcomes.
However there will be occasions when we do not agree with the final decision taken by the Regulator: either the serving of a Notice and/or the details of the Notice schedule. These decisions can have a significant impact on the ability to continue operations, and we then have to decide on a formal appeal.
The appeals mechanism is clearly explained in user-friendly guidance that always accompanies a formal Notice. The guidance clearly explains how a Notice of Appeal should be lodged, the time frame for doing so, and explains how the appeal is processed at the relevant Employment Tribunal. We do not see the need for any changes / improvements to this guidance for the current mechanism.
We are concerned that the time for the Employment Tribunal to hear the appeal is too long. Appellants are notified at least 14 days before the hearing, and the hearing itself may take a similar period of time. Moreover, lead time has to be added before the hearing can be fitted into the Tribunal’s schedule. So we are likely talking about a delay of at least two months before the appeal is heard by the independent, statutory body. During such time, the conditions set out in the Notice schedule are likely to have been met by the operator, so that a successful appeal to the Employment Tribunal does not serve the operator’s aim of having the decision rapidly repealed so that normal operations can resume.
Accordingly we believe that this review of the regulatory appeals mechanism should carefully consider how a second opinion from an independent, third party expert panel could be incorporated. Properly constituted, this panel would rapidly convene to take evidence from both parties, and arbitrate on a technical level without having to wait for the legal arguments in an Employment Tribunal hearing.
We are aware of occasions when the conditions set out in a Notice schedule do not appear to be consistent with the grounds for serving the Notice, and these illustrate where a formal appeal stage to a technically qualified panel would arbitrate on the evident inconsistencies.
We acknowledge that there would be practical difficulties introducing such a stage into the appeals process: there would be significant legal considerations for the constitution of the panel and the powers to be vested in it. Nevertheless, given the implications of regulators’ decisions that include prohibited operations which compromise the long-term viability of a facility, and given that the decisions may be based on finely balanced technical judgements, we suggest that as a follow-up to this consultation consideration is given to introducing an independent review panel hearing prior to the Employment Tribunal. Cristal would be willing to contribute to the discussions for this.
**************************************

Focus area: Appeals

Regulator concerned: Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)

Comment:
Introduction

The Association of Labour Providers (ALP) represents over 270 labour providers, all of which are subject to the statutory licensing of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). The following submission relates to the GLA appeals mechanism.

Proposals to improve the GLA Regulatory Appeals Mechanism

The GLA is a regulator with significant powers that can seriously impact the trading situation of a labour provider, including a bar on supplying to the regulated sector.
It is in the interest of labour providers, the GLA, the Government and the taxpayer to reduce the high number of appeals submitted through the Tribunals and to seek alternative, less expensive and time consuming routes that offer means of informal, internal dispute resolution, particularly in less serious cases.
Below follows a number of recommendations as to how this could be achieved.
The current GLA process may be summarised as:
1. Compliance / Application Inspection by Inspector against the GLA Licensing Standards
2. Inspection Report submitted by Inspector to GLA Licensing team
3. Licensing team decision
4. Right of appeal through the Courts
The GLA appeals process for England, Scotland and Wales is run by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) and in Northern Ireland the appeals process is run by the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET). There is no fee to lodge an appeal against a decision of the GLA, but each party is responsible for their own costs in preparing for and pursuing and responding to the appeal. There is no provision for costs to be awarded under The (Gangmasters Appeals) Regulations 2006.
Until May 2012 the inspected labour provider was not informed of the allegations against him and had no opportunity to respond to the GLA evidence prior to a decision being made by the GLA Licensing team. This was contrary to the principle of natural justice of “Audi alteram partem” in that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. This process was also contrary to the Regulators’ Compliance Code at 8.2 which states that: “When considering formal enforcement action, regulators should, where appropriate, discuss the circumstances with those suspected of a breach and take these into account when deciding on the best approach.”
The GLA has since modified its position stating that:
“The intent of the GLA at inspections is that there should be “no surprises for the inspected labour provider when the Licensing Decision letter is issued. Therefore, GLA Inspectors will ensure that the Principal Authority is aware of issues that may indicate that the requirements of the standards are not being met.
During the inspection the Inspectors will identify the issues that they have found and may invite the licence holder to comment and present any evidence. In practice this will normally be done as each particular area of the standards is reviewed as would be expected as good practice.
However, GLA Inspectors may also decide that it is appropriate to put a summary of allegations to the Principal Authority or seek comments on matters uncovered during the inspection, at the end of the inspection.”
This is an improvement on the former situation but does not go far enough.
Recommendation 1 – GLA Inspectors should always hold a “summary of allegations” wrap up at the end of an inspection at which they highlight issues uncovered which may be potential breaches of the licensing standards. This allows the labour provider to offer a full response on these issues and present all relevant evidence prior to a decision being taken. This reduces the scope for error and misunderstanding and reduces the number of cases that will go to appeal.
Having concluded the inspection on a labour provider, the GLA Inspector currently compiles an Inspection Report which is submitted to the GLA Licensing Team for a decision. This Inspection Report is regarded by the GLA as a confidential document and is not provided to the labour provider. Requests to view the Inspection Report are refused.
Recommendation 2 – Prior to submitting the Inspection Report to the GLA Licensing Team, the GLA Inspector should provide a copy of the written report to the labour provider and allow a period of two weeks for the labour provider to respond in writing. This again reduces the scope for error and misunderstanding and reduces the number of cases that will go to formal appeal. At this stage the ALP could support its members on a without prejudice basis in resolving any points of difference between the GLA and the labour provider.
A similar process already exists where a new licence application is refused. This is called a ‘pre appeal’ and the labour provider can provide further information to correct any factual errors within 10 days. It is proposed that this approach is extended to compliance inspections on existing licence holders.
N.B. In accordance with the Regulators’ Compliance Code 8.2 recommendations 1 and 2 above would not apply where immediate action is required to prevent or respond to a serious breach or where to do so is likely to defeat the purpose of the proposed enforcement action.
On receipt of the Inspection Report the GLA Licensing team make a decision on the labour provider’s compliance or otherwise with the GLA Licensing Standards with the outcome being one of the following:
• Full compliance with Licensing Standards
• Additional Licence Conditions imposed
• Revocation without immediate effect
• Revocation with immediate effect
Recommendation 3 – The decision should be issued within four weeks of an inspection visit (or end of response period if Recommendation 2 is adopted) or an interim notification provided. It is not acceptable for the GLA to have provided no response to a labour provider, as regularly happens, for many months after an inspection visit.
Following the issue of the Licensing Team decision there is no formalised process to question/challenge or otherwise respond on the decision other than to appeal the finding through the Tribunal Service where cases are heard by an Appointed Person in a format that resembles an Employment Tribunal. This is costly and time consuming for both the GLA and the labour provider.
Recommendation 4 – There should be a period of four weeks whereby the labour provider can submit evidence and enter into discussions with the GLA regarding the findings of the case. This again reduces the scope for error and misunderstanding and reduces the number of cases that will go to formal appeal. Again the ALP could support its members on a without prejudice basis in resolving any points of difference between the GLA and the labour provider.
The first key principle of natural justice is “Nemo iudex in causa sua”, meaning that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The GLA should therefore consider whether this internal process above should be heard by a separate function to the Licensing Team.
Following the above alternative internal dispute resolution mechanisms, the formal appeal channels as currently exist would then be available.
As part of a current consultation, the GLA is to consider a number of changes to increase transparency regarding the status of a GLA licence holder. Specifically:
• Enhancing the public register to detail any additional licence conditions (ALCs) on a licence
• Identifying whether a particular licence is subject to appeal
• Identifying on the public register the outcome of an appeal, for a limited time period
• Amending the active check process to notify when there are changes to a licence status as detailed above
This information would be publicly available to competitors and clients. The GLA believe that to publish such information would create a pressure to raise the level of compliance within the industry with the labour provider more likely proactively to resolve, and correct, the identified areas of non-compliance. The GLA also considers that such a change would provide greater openness and information for labour users and that they will want to contract with fully compliant labour providers, and those that are non-compliant will therefore work towards compliance and the removal of the additional licence conditions in order to be able to compete on a level playing field. Where a licence was subject to revocation proceedings labour users would be able to make contractual decisions with the full knowledge of the potential impacts and risks to their business and make contingency plans to avoid disruption.
This proposal presents risks to both the GLA and labour providers. Where such information is displayed on the GLA Public Register it is to be expected that in a significant number of cases,a s the GLA recognises in its consultation, that the labour provider will withdraw their business from the labour provider. To display such information on the GLA public register before any form of appeal at all has been heard creates a perception of guilty until proven innocent. Evidence demonstrates that the GLA loses or withdraws from one in eight cases that are appealed to Tribunal. Without implementing an internal checking and review process as contained in the recommendations above, to adopt these new proposals put forward by the GLA runs the risk of:
• Unfairly tarnishing the reputation of a significant proportion of labour providers
• Such organisations litigating against the GLA (as has happened previously) for loss of business, goodwill and reputation damage.

The reasons why the GLA should amend its licensing decision process and adopt the recommendations outlined above are:
• It would be in accord with the Regulators’ Compliance Code.
• It would demonstrate an evolution towards lighter touch regulation without limiting the powers that the GLA has at its disposal.
• It adheres to the principles of natural justice in providing a fair opportunity for a labour provider to challenge the evidence presented by the GLA, to summon witnesses and to present evidence, and to have counsel, if necessary, in order to make its case properly prior to a decision being made.
• It would reduce the GLA’s and labour provider’s legal fees as more issues would be resolved at a pre-legal stage.
• It reduces risk of legal action against the GLA

Because of the variety in sizes, remits, legal responsibilities and functions, we are not surprisingly finding that there is no such thing as a typical appeals mechanism or a route for obtaining a second opinion.  All this means that there is plenty of scope to compare and analyse different set-ups and to learn from and share best practice, whilst recognising the different environments in which regulators and their stakeholders operate.  So, a very rich seam to mine, and one in which stakeholder input is key to finding out what works and where and how improvements can be made.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I am a consultant in the domicliary care sector. The loss of the NMS means that the sector struggles to understand their exact responsibilies under the H&S Care Legislation. This is the least professionalised of the care services and yet serves many more people than the residential sector. The CQC does not reach the Service Users in this area by
telephoning people or checking the provider’s office systems. More time
for these services needs to be spent in monitoring what is actually happening at grass roots ie spot checking or involving LiNK or other voluntary services to do the spot checking.

Focus area: Appeals

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
My experience of the CQC over the past year involves everything that is still the concern with the CQAC and how they operate.

My main concerns are placing items on the CQC web site that has no evidence, was not a true reflection of the comments by anyone, i.e. myself, my staff, the clients and their family. Comments made by disgruntled care staff that were on a disciplinary or dismissed, should not be taken as an accepted and removed from the site when not substantiated. At the very least, when it has been proven over 30 times that the care workers were lying and had been warned by the company of defamation of character, then they should note this information on the site.

It is true about difference of each inspector and how they inspect. It is true that there is still too large a differential between the inspectors that know what they are doing and those that do not.

Inspections of compliance is only on the documentation and not on what actually happens and being fair. it is worrying the amount of staff that have left and go to another company and no reference was sought. Is there evidence of companies/organisations fabricating evidence to proof compliance.

Using a company, like my own to justify doing the right thing when it was wrong is not a reason to continue doing it.

The inspections and monitoring of clients by both the social services and the CQC at the same time is not acceptable for the clients or family and the CQC and the local government should be ashamed of their recent behaviour on this company.

Why if someone calls to make an allegation that they are not checked that they are who they say they are. We had an ex care worker call up to make allegations about how we treat our clients and she had been on an extended probationary period, then on a disciplinary and then dismissed and it is interesting to note that when the clients were asked, it was herself that was at fault, so we dealt with the situation. In conclusion, evidence should be checked. If nothing is substantiated, then it should be removed.

There has never been any support with new companies to work with the companies to ensure their documentation is fully compliant. There should be more respect in regards of Franchisees working with the documentation they have been given by the Franchisor and any non compliance of forms should be directed to the franchisor.

Making comments in the local press when it is not accurate and not substantiated, but is given to them, is not appropriate and is misleading and helps no one.

Complaints about the process of inspection visits not being looked at until after the improvements have been made is just an excuse for the XCQC to prolong and not address the complaints.

In defending and making appeals against the system, it is very difficult as one voice and it would be nice to share negative experiences with others

The CQC should treat all companies the same, not print information given that has not been substantiated. Give some weight to the voice of companies that are aware of bad care workers and to form a list. Have clear guidelines about who is responsible and why about putting them on the bar list. Clear guidelines for thge CRB’s that is relevant to the law. Clear evidence of references and better referencing. Better ways of contacting vulnerable adults and listening and recording their information based on a fair assessment of what they understand to be the process. To support companies to be compliant and work with companies to improve instead of using them as a victim to evidence they are doing something.

Hope this helps. It is generalised, but covers the topics you discussed and demonstrates that I concur that they have a long way to go and I am seriously worried about what they are doing.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC),Local Authority or Fire Authority

Comment:
Quality improvement
There is considerable duplication and a wasteful use of resource by local authorities inspecting care homes in addition to CQC. Many of these Councils have developed their own extensive quality standards, some of which are modelled on CQC’s essential standards, some are quite separate. We have heard of Councils with dedicated inspections teams carrying out this function which is above and beyond contract monitoring.
This duplicate activity has been recognised for a number of years and creates additional regulatory and administrative burdens for providers; it makes for a fragmentary approach to quality improvement and quality monitoring. It is confusing for providers and even more so for the public. It is questionable whether such activity does anything to drive quality improvement. This issue is compounded by the Government’s seemingly incoherent approach to quality improvement – an area that has lacked consistent leadership since the demise of CSCI.
For example the following are a selection of agencies (mainly funded by the department f health) all of which are working on social care quality:
- NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement (Care Homes Programme: http://www.institute.nhs.uk/innovation/care_homes/care_homes.html )
- Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership HQIP http://www.hqip.org.uk/social-care-quality-improvement/ )
- NICE -The Health and Social Care Act 2012 sets out a new responsibility for NICE to develop quality standards and other guidance for social care in England. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qualitystandards/qualitystandards.jsp
- TLAP (National Market Development Forum)
- SCIE (Including Fine Me Good Care)
- The Provider Quality Profile on NHS Choices (transparency measures) being developed/implemented by the department.
The care home sector is inundated with initiatives, which arguably do little to drive up quality, they add considerable burden and create confusion for the public. There needs to be one single agency dealing with quality within a coherent framework. The basis for this must be the ‘essential standards’ which should provide the foundation for quality improvement.
Market oversight
We believe it would be a huge mistake to treat voluntary sector, not-for-profit providers in the same way as the largest corporate, private equity owned care companies. The largest voluntary providers have been operating for years without – to our knowledge -a single example of business failure.
These are organisations like, Mencap/Leonard Cheshire Disability/ RNIB/Action on Hearing Loss. Their financial and governance structure are quite different to the private sector. They are accountable to a number of different agencies, including the Charity Commission, Companies House; CQC, ETC. They generally owned the properties they use for service provision (i.e. they are not sold and leased back) and do not normally carry high levels of debt.
Safeguarding
There are a number of issues around safeguarding which give us major (and growing) cause for concern.
Safeguarding people in vulnerable situations is of fundamental importance to all service providers in social care. It follows that we need clear systems for identifying, reporting and dealing effectively with incidences causing concern. Sadly this is not currently the case and our concern is that new legislation has missed the opportunity to rectify some of the current failings.

These can be illustrated by:-
Lack of clarity of definition about what constitutes a “safeguarding” issue:
• Incidences of customer complaints, isolated service failure or poor practice being dealt with as safeguarding issues when they do not justify it.
• Lack of clarity over what should be reported has led to considerable amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy with over-reporting. (One safeguarding specialist reported that 40% of referrals were appropriate, 40% completely inappropriate and 20% marginal).
• Variations in definition cause particular challenges for those providers operating in several different Local Authority areas.
• In particular, there appears to be widely differing views and considerable uncertainty as to whether incidences between two service users should lead to safeguarding referrals.
• There is a lack of clarity about the boundaries between abuse, neglect and poor practice.
Processes and procedures:
• Each Local Authority Adult Safeguarding Board has different requirements for reporting, procedures and documentation, which causes confusion and extra work for providers.
• There are conflicting views about whether staff who are subject to allegations of abuse should always be suspended from duty. Safeguarding specialists and employers may have differing views and legal advice is not always clear. Suspensions can last for a long time (particularly as responsibility for suspended staff has no bearing on the financial resources of the safeguarding team) and may result in no finding of responsibility. Such suspensions can be very costly for providers and cause considerable stress on often tight staffing levels.
• Providers are required to report to several paces; the Safeguarding Authority, the CQC and, where relevant, the Charity Commission.
• There have been instances where LA commissioners have threatened to restrict further placements to the provider if a staff member is not suspended on their instruction.
All of these issues risk being a disincentive for providers to report concerns, which could have serious consequences.
John Adams OBE
General Secretary
VODG
www.vodg.org.uk
07917 670 509

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
In this time of budgetary pressures, with an increasing population of older people with complex needs regulators need to be mindful of the importance of effective monitoring, and what the response should be if a provider continually fails in that monitoring process. Effective monitoring needs to encompass not only the physical environment of the service but also look at how person-centred services are and whether they are supporting people to maintain their wellbeing.
Regulators will target areas of greatest risk, but unfortunately this may not be until an incident has occurred or there are a number of issues which has made them aware of the high level of risk at a particular service. When planning a monitoring schedule it would be beneficial for both the local authorities and CQC to plan in line with the levels of risk; in order to do this closer working is required between partners to ensure that all information around the service is known by the relevant parties and the risk can be appropriately assessed.
Newcastle City Council has a number of monitoring tools developed for the particular services being monitoring – the Quality Standards Framework (QSF) which is used for residential and nursing homes. The tool allows the authority to work with and support providers with any standards that they are failing in, but it also gives the authority the ability to suspend future admissions until any failures have been rectified if the provider does not work to address the concerns – we believe this to be a proportionate response which allows us to manage potential risks of failing providers. Newcastle’s Adult Commissioning, Safeguarding and Complaints teams are working together to develop processes by which, if a number of informal issues have been raised about a provider monitoring visits can be triggered before major issues arise – once this process is in place it will also be rolled out across Social Work teams to ensure all partners are involved. Commissioners also meet with CQC on a monthly basis to discuss any issues with care homes, and in addition to this regional meetings are held on a bi-monthly basis with CQC and regional neighbours to share any relevant information.
It is also important for regulators to be given consistent advice in regards to what is expected of their role, conflicting guidance can result in unclear processes which have the potential to put vulnerable people at risk. In response to pressures from DoH CQC are in the process of recruiting more inspectors, reviewing their strategy and how they will regulate services in the future, although a recruitment drive has been carried out they are now inspecting a number of health services, and this number is due to rise from April 2013.

In opposition with this other government bodies are carrying out consultations questioning the level of bureaucracy around the monitoring of services. In the current climate it is difficult for both regulators and providers due to resource pressures; however the role of the regulator is to ensure good quality services which are helping to keep some of the most vulnerable members of our society safe. Instances have already arisen where it was felt that the regulator was at fault for not picking up on situations, to reduce the role of the regulator is only likely to result in a higher number of lower quality services that ultimately put service users at risk.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
Alzheimer’s Society welcomes the opportunity to comment on and contribute to the Improving enforcement in adult care homes consultation. The Society recently responded to a consultation by the Care Quality Commission on its strategy for 2013-16. The Society has used our response to this consultation to inform our comments.

1. Alzheimer’s Society
Alzheimer’s Society is the UK’s leading support and research charity for people with dementia, their families and carers. We provide information and support to people with any form of dementia and their carers through our publications National Dementia Helpline, website and more than 2,000 local services. We campaign for better quality of life for people with dementia and greater understanding of dementia. We also fund an innovative programme of medical and social research into the cause, cure and prevention of dementia and the care people receive.

2. Summary
Dementia represents a major challenge to the health and social care system. There are 670,000 people with dementia in England and dementia currently costs the UK economy £23 billion a year . Only 41% of people with dementia in England have a formal diagnosis, meaning many are unable to access the support and care they need. The challenge of dementia is increasing; by 2021 there will be over a million people living with dementia in the UK. Two thirds of people in care homes have dementia and up to a quarter of hospital beds are occupied by someone with dementia.

There is currently unacceptable variation in the quality of dementia care provided by health and care services. Poor quality care can be harmful to people with dementia, having a devastating impact on the individual and their carer and putting additional pressure on the health and care system.

A robust and effective regulatory system is essential for ensuring the health and care services people with dementia use are of sufficient quality and action is taken where standards are not being met.

Alzheimer’s Society is concerned that regulation and enforcement in adult social care is failing to deliver a high quality care sector, based on personalised care. In particular, the national regulator, Care Quality Commission (CQC), is regulating for quality and instead remains an assessment and assurance regulator, looking at compliance with minimum standards. Without effective regulation for quality, there is little systemic means of improving the quality of services received by people with dementia.

3. Quality of adult social care
Inadequate or poor quality care can have a disastrous effect on people with dementia. Not diagnosing people with dementia means they are unable to access appropriate services and support, mainstream services may struggle or respond inappropriately to their needs and carers are likely to struggle without support. People with dementia may end up in hospital or being admitted earlier than expected to more intensive and costly care environments as a result of lack of support.

Lack of training and support for staff can lead to inappropriate or even harmful care. This can include inappropriate responses to behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, such as use of antipsychotics or restraint. Poor care can also mean people with dementia have substantial unmet needs, such as dehydration and pain.

Reports by Alzheimer’s Society , the former regulator of social care The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and a number of others have demonstrated challenges to the delivery of quality care to people with dementia in care homes. Specific issues around promotion of dignity and respect, choice and opportunities for social interaction and activities have been identified. These are further demonstrated by the findings of CQC care home inspections, which have found high levels of non-compliance with existing standards.

4. Principles of Regulation
Regulation is both essential to ensuring standards and also fundamental to building trust and confidence in the health and care system. The Society believes there are seven key points to the regulation and enforcement of services for people with dementia. These should be central to any consideration of existing regulations.

4.1. Regulators must have sufficient resources and powers to drive up quality
Regulators must have the powers to drive up quality and take action where providers are failing, along with the resources to use these powers effectively. This also builds public faith in health and care services and in the regulatory system itself. The Society has noted with considerable concern evidence that CQC does not have sufficient resources to carry out its regulatory and enforcement functions.

Inspection is a vital part of understanding the care provided to people with dementia and must be an integral part of regulation. Reductions in inspections carried out by CQC in 2010-11 when resources were shifted to re-registration and data from recent State of care reports, which shows that CQC is still not routinely inspecting every care service annually, indicate CQC remains insufficiently resourced.

4.2. A focus on continuous quality improvement
Alzheimer’s Society believes that monitoring adherence to essential or minimum standards does not do enough to promote high quality or personalised care for people with dementia. The focus of regulation should lie on quality improvement, rather than, as exists presently, quality assessment and assurance, which does little to drive up standards of care. The Society believes quality standards and regulations must be amended accordingly.

Consideration of commissioning practices is also needed. As there is no independent regulation of social care commissioning, regulators can only take action on the services that result from poor commissioning practices, rather than on commissioning itself. Failing to look at commissioning practices means there is no check on local authority actions, which may have a profound impact on the ability of providers to meet standards. The Society believes that given the central importance of commissioning, CQC should oversee this function as a part of essential standards for registered services. CQC should also promote commissioning for quality, including use of tools such as Alzheimer’s Society’s Contracting for quality guidelines for care homes.

4.3. Transparency
Public information about the quality of health and social care services is fundamental for people to make informed choices about their care and to have confidence in the care system. However, people with dementia and their carers often say they find it difficult to access information about the quality of services. Greater transparency from regulators, such as publishing inspection information, would help to build public confidence in care services and the ability of the regulators to ensure that services are of a high standard.

In particular, the public need more detailed information to enable them to make informed choices about care services. At the current time there is a lack of indicators of excellence or good practice, other than compliance with minimum standards. This does not allow a service user to understand the differences between the quality of care provided by different services, and therefore does not support informed choice.

Alzheimer’s Society considers that there should be a robust system for providing public ratings on quality of providers. Such a system should:
• give a complete picture of the quality of a service, including the quality of dementia care, to enable people to make informed choices
• be developed in partnership with residents and families
• incorporate feedback from residents and families
• be easy to understand
• be publicised and made widely available.

4.4. Regular inspection
Alzheimer’s Society believes that inspection must be an integral and frequent part of any review system and that inspections must be primarily unannounced inspections. Inspection is a vital part of understanding the care provided to people with dementia, particularly in a care home setting, and is a key way to see what life for service users in a care setting is like and understand the quality of dementia care being provided.

The Society believes that inspectors must use techniques such as the SOFI observational process, so that the real-life experiences of people with dementia can be understood. Given the number of people with dementia who are accessing health and social care services across a range of settings, it is also vital that inspectors and assessors carrying out inspections have an understanding of dementia and other key issues such as the Mental Capacity Act. Training in these areas must be a priority for all inspectors and assessors and such training should involve people with dementia and their families themselves. The Society also believes there is a potential for specialist inspectors and unknown inspections, where inspectors visit without provider knowledge.

Alongside regular and robust inspection, Alzheimer’s Society believes that statutory lay monitoring of health and care settings has the potential to support the work of the regulator and drive up standards of care, in particular in care homes. Such a model could be building on existing systems for public involvement in health and social care, such as developing Healthwatch organisations.
The Society welcomes the creation of Healthwatch and believes it could be a valuable tool both in gathering evidence about experiences of care and ensuring that service users are engaged and involved in services. Healthwatch organisations will take local experiences of care and use them to influence national policy and inform local implementation. Specifically, as of April 2013, local Healthwatch organisations will have the power to enter and view services; influence service commissioning by having a seat on the local health and wellbeing board; produce reports and provide information, advice and support about local services; and pass information and recommendations to Healthwatch England and the Care Quality Commission. However, both local Healthwatch and Healthwatch England must be sufficiently resourced if they are to make the most of their powers and act as an effective tool for driving up quality.

4.5. Effective and robust enforcement
The Society believes that, when prescribed standards are not met, there must be rapid responses to prevent harm and to ensure public faith in the regulatory system. Early intervention, through the use of enforcement actions such as penalty notices and suspension of registration, can be effective in avoiding crisis situations, such as emergency admissions to hospital or into long term care. Regulators must have the capacity and resources to intervene earlier and to report to the public on enforcement actions, as this is integral to building faith in the regulatory system.

While enforcement should always be proportionate, the Society does not believe successive failings by providers should be tolerated, even if the impact of such failings is moderate or minor. As such enforcement procedures should escalate the scale of enforcement action in the face of successive failings by providers.

4.6. Involvement in regulation
Alzheimer’s Society believes it is essential that people who use services are placed at the centre of the regulatory system. People who use services are the experts in how well a service addresses their needs and their feedback must be at the heart of any assessment or inspection of services.

In addition, regulators must empower and encourage service users to feed back information about quality of services. This should be done in an inclusive way through a variety of media, either directly to the regulators or via independent bodies, such as Healthwatch.

Greater collaboration and easier reporting processes would also encourage complaints and comments to be made and ensure those making complaints do not have to go through multiple agencies to be heard. The Society understands that complaints can be a complex and difficult area for service users, who may be distressed or anxious and, in the case of people with dementia, may struggle to express themselves. Soliciting complaints from people who are receiving ongoing support from a service is a particular challenge, since service users and their family may be more concerned about the implications of lodging a complaint or may struggle to understand complaint procedures. The Society would like to see CQC working with local authorities, the police and ombudsmen in sharing information about complaints.

4.7. Services which are financially viable, particularly care homes
Recent evidence has demonstrated a number of concerns regarding the financial viability of the health and care system. The Society has particular concerns on this relating to care homes, where there is significant potential for disruption to peoples’ lives caused by the collapse of a provider. People with dementia may find any changes hard to adjust to, particularly if their dementia is advanced and they have to move from one care home to another. In areas where there is a shortage of alternative providers who can easily and at similar cost provide the same quality of care, sudden failures can leave people with no access to the care they need.

Alzheimer’s Society agrees with recommendations from the National Audit Office’s on financial viability of care homes that there must be further arrangements at both a national and local level to protect users from provider failures. This could include a role for regulatory bodies in monitoring the financial viability of service providers. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of extending the NHS economic regulator, Monitor’s, duties to include registered social care providers.

5. Recommendations
There is a clear need for all parties, including CQC, local authorities, the police and ombudsmen to work together to reduce unnecessary regulation, support information sharing and ensure effective monitoring and enforcement.

Alzheimer’s Society has a number of recommendations in relation to improving regulation and enforcement in adult social care:
5.1. Regulation must be founded in regular inspection. Regarding targeting areas identified at greatest risk, agencies should be cautious about implementing risk profiling. Risk profiling should be supported with rigid safeguards, such as events which immediately trigger an inspection or re-assessment of a providers risk level.
5.2. The Society broadly welcomes proposals from CQC of a shift towards differential regulation and making wider use of information to inform its decisions. This could lead to more tailored and effective standards for different services being developed. However, the Society has called on CQC to provide more information on how differential regulation could support a focus on quality improvement instead of quality assurance or assessment.
5.3. In ensuring transparency and accountability, regulators of health and care services have a key role to play in publishing more detailed information about the regulation and quality of services, including inspection reports. Information must be made easily accessible and available in a range of formats, including off-line. Currently, there is a lack of indicators of excellence or good practice, other than compliance with minimum standards. This does not allow a service user to understand the differences between the quality of care provided by different services, and therefore does not support informed choice.
5.4. Staff must be empowered and supported by the regulator. In particular, whistleblowing by staff requires greater clarification. It is in the interests of regulators, in assessing and monitoring services, to act to encourage whistleblowers to report issues directly to CQC, the appropriate regulating body, or through Healthwatch.
5.5. Service users need to be informed and supported by an efficient complaints system. Complaints processes need to be streamlined and regulatory bodies better at sharing information on complaints as the current system is complex and confusing.
5.6. To support reducing the overlap between regulatory regimes processes for gathering and sharing evidence should be streamlined and merged. For instance, evidence collated from national CQC inspections should be used for other purposes, such as by local authorities in their own assessments.
5.7. There is much duplication in the system as many health and care staff are themselves covered by regulation as part of their registration with professional licensing agencies such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the General Medical Council. Linking regulations around quality of providers with those relating to professionals would both enable more streamlined regulation and also support provision of holistic quality care.
5.8. Regulatory bodies and inspectors need to have knowledge and understanding of dementia and should be provided with ongoing training. Also, there should be exploration of the potential of specialist inspectors, with expertise in specific areas, such as dementia. Specialist inspections could help build trust in the regulation and monitoring processes.
5.9. Alzheimer’s Society remains concerned awareness of the Mental Capacity Act, which protects and promotes people’s ability to make choices about their lives, remains low. CQC in England is the regulator of the implementation of the Act. We believe CQC should make improving awareness of the Act a priority alongside linking its regulation of the Act with wider regulation and inspection activities.

Alzheimer’s Society would welcome further discussions into regulation and enforcement.

Geraldine Green
Policy Adviser
geraldine.green@alzheimers.org.uk

References
Department of Health (2012) Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia. Department of Health. London
Alzheimer’s Society (2012) Dementia 2012: a national challenge. Alzheimer’s Society. London.
Alzheimer’s Society (2012) Mapping the dementia gap 2011. Online at www.alzheimers.org.uk/dementiamap
Alzheimer’s Society (2008). Home from home. Alzheimer’s Society. London.
CSCI (2008). See me, not just the dementia. CSCI. London.
CQC (2011). State of care 2010/11. CQC. London.
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2012). The Care Quality Commission: Regulating the quality and safety of health and adult social care. The Stationary Office. London.
CQC (2011). State of care 2010/11. CQC. London.
Alzheimer’s Society (2010). Contracting for Quality. Alzheimer’s Society. London.
NAO (2011). Oversight of user choice and provider competition in care markets. The Stationary Office. London.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
We would like to thank BIS for confirmation that we can respond to this important review on behalf of the domiciliary care sector. The United Kingdom Homecare Association (UKHCA) is the professional association for homecare providers across the UK. We support our members to provide high quality, sustainable homecare so that people can live at home for as long as they choose to.

The homecare sector is regulated by CQC under the same standards as residential care providers. Homecare providers also face enforcement activity from HMRC, HSE and local authority commissioners. As a result, a number of issues facing our members will no doubt be voiced by the residential care sector as well. There are however a number of differences in how our sector operates and the effect enforcement has on homecare providers which we believe merit inclusion in this review by BIS.

We accept that regulating and inspecting domiciliary care can be difficult but believe there are many improvements that can be made to the current system.

The move from the Domiciliary Care National Minimum Standards to the Essential Standards of Quality and Safety in 2010 was a move from service specific standards to general outcomes, applicable to the whole health and social care sector. This change was rapid and with almost no guidance from the regulator on how to interpret compliance with standards in specific care settings, making compliance difficult for providers, particularly smaller organisations, to evidence.

A lack of guidance throughout registration is only exacerbated after an inspection when a provider who is non-compliant is then told they need to become compliant with no further guidance. We feel that this approach is unlikely to increase levels of compliance promptly and can potentially leave people using non-compliant services for too long. CQC should consider offering providers more guidance on how to achieve and evidence compliance.

Within this generalised system our members complain of inconsistent judgements by CQC inspectors who we understand are becoming more generalists, who commonly lack sector-specific understanding. We believe this may create a knowledge gap that could impact on the judgements providers receive and the recognition and spread of good practice. Inconsistent judgements can be most apparent for large corporate providers who can receive dramatically different judgements about the same policy and procedure from inspection of different branches. Providers have also complained of inspectors’ lack of expertise in gathering information. For instance, recording that staff haven’t had any safeguarding training because the staff interviewed didn’t understand the terminology used and have had safeguarding training under a different name. Clearly this can have a very significant impact on the inspection result for providers.

We believe the onsite inspection process can be improved. Our members find that inspectors can still be reluctant to look at evidence other than paperwork. This is very disappointing for a regulator that should be focussing on the actual experience of people using services. In homecare it can be more time consuming to gather those views meaning that providers often receive judgements based on the views of a very small sample size. This needs to be addressed with some urgency to ensure that homecare providers receive robust judgements about the quality of their service.

We have been genuinely encouraged by the work done by CQC looking at new inspection methodologies in homecare through their themed inspection process. However, if CQC don’t adopt these new methodologies, they will continue to assess inputs only (policies and procedures) rather than genuinely assessing the experience of people using the service.

Providers and potential providers that seek information or guidance on how to interpret regulations from CQC’s central call centre can run into problems. The call centre seems to be aimed at answering questions for the public rather than providers and seem unable to provide accurate and consistent information on anything except rudimentary questions. Understanding the scope of regulation (in relation to employment agencies) has been particularly difficult for some potential providers who are given incorrect information from the regulator leaving them to potentially operate illegally had we not clarified the scope of regulation to them.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Local Authority or Fire Authority

Comment:
We would like to thank BIS for confirmation that we can respond to this important review on behalf of the domiciliary care sector. The United Kingdom Homecare Association (UKHCA) is the professional association for homecare providers across the UK. We support our members to provide high quality, sustainable homecare so that people can live at home for as long as they choose to.

The homecare sector is regulated by CQC under the same standards as residential care providers. Homecare providers also face enforcement activity from HMRC, HSE and local authority commissioners. As a result, a number of issues facing our members will no doubt be voiced by the residential care sector as well. There are however a number of differences in how our sector operates and the effect enforcement has on homecare providers which we believe merit inclusion in this review by BIS.

Local authority requirments:

Arguably the most significant impact that statutory commissioners have on the ability of providers to comply with regulations is that of price. The continued downward pressure on prices does and will continue to limit providers’ ability to meet regulations set down by CQC and other bodies such as HMRC and the HSE. However, while we believe that the price paid for care is outside the scope of this review, there are a number of areas where local authorities add financial and administrative burdens to providers that could be addressed.

Contract monitoring by local authorities can cause huge amounts of work for providers that is duplicated by the work they do in evidencing their compliance with the Essential Standards to CQC. We are given the impression that contract monitoring is increasingly encroaching on areas monitored by CQC but with different evidence requirements, including additional paper work, notifications and site visits. This situation is further exacerbated where a provider contracts with more than one authority.

Our impression is that local authority officers have lost trust in CQC’s ability to effectively monitor services during their transition from CSCI to CQC and their subsequent move to maintaining compliance with regulation, rather than assessing quality. Building greater trust in CQC’s ability to effectively regulate our sector and increasing its ability to share information with other stakeholders should help reduce this burden. Whilst we believe this will be a challenging barrier for CQC and councils to overcome, it is essential for providers who want to spend less time and money on duplicative administration and more time concentrating on the quality of care they provide.

We frequently hear from our member organisations that local authorities require all staff working with local authority funded clients to have annual or tri-annual criminal record checks, despite being in continuous employment. An enhanced criminal records check currently costs £44, £50 with a DBS adult barred list check, usually with an additional administration charge too. This additional requirement can be very costly for providers and needs to be addressed. We also here from members about local authorities that disregard the provisions set out by CQC for workers to start working without a full criminal record check if their DBS adult barred list check comes back clear. This provision has been made to ensure that people using services are not put at risk by low staffing levels which can result from long wait times for criminal record checks to be complete. The current provision requires providers to put in a number of additional safeguards until the enhanced criminal record check is received. Local authorities who refuse this practice for their clients place providers in a particularly difficult position when trying to ensure that staffing levels are adequate for all clients.

Ensuring that clauses requiring providers to go above and beyond regulation are removed from contracts like those described above would be a way of ensuring this practise is removed.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: HM Revenue & Customs (Money Laundering Regulations & National Minimum Wage)

Comment:
We would like to thank BIS for confirmation that we can respond to this important review on behalf of the domiciliary care sector. The United Kingdom Homecare Association (UKHCA) is the professional association for homecare providers across the UK. We support our members to provide high quality, sustainable homecare so that people can live at home for as long as they choose to

The homecare sector is regulated by CQC under the same standards as residential care providers. Homecare providers also face enforcement activity from HMRC, HSE and local authority commissioners. As a result, a number of issues facing our members will no doubt be voiced by the residential care sector as well. There are however a number of differences in how our sector operates and the effect enforcement has on homecare providers which we believe merit inclusion in this review by BIS.

HMRC and NMW enforcement:

Unfortunately, social care is a typically low paying sector with many front line workers sometimes earning marginally above the National Minimum Wage (NMW). As commissioners’ budgets become ever more squeezed the price they pay independent and voluntary sector providers for care is being forced downwards. This is bringing wages ever closer to the NMW, as staff wages are the biggest element in the cost of an hour of homecare.

We know from our discussions with HMRC that the homecare sector is currently being scrutinised for NMW compliance. To date, we have not received a view of the findings of HMRC’s scrutiny of compliance within the homecare sector but we believe that provider non-compliance (should it be found) is likely to be unintentional. This is due in part to the complexity of NMW regulations and a limited understanding of how the regulations apply to a workforce where working time is difficult to calculate and staff working patterns change on a weekly basis.
It is also clear that the rising costs of providing care and increasing NMW rate, combined with a reduction in commissioned rates severely limits providers’ ability to maintain compliance. For domiciliary care, the effect of reduction in commissioned rates is exacerbated by increasing use of short visit times of 30 or even 15 minutes. In our 2012 survey of homecare providers, we found that 73% of homecare visits in England appear to be of 30 minutes or less, and we expect this proportion to continue to rise. These visits are often paid for at a pro-rata of the hourly rate for the “contact time” only (the time the care worker spends with the client), making it very difficult for providers to comply with NMW when they are paid for 30 minutes work that may have taken the care worker 50 minutes to complete including their travel time.
We fear this could lead to a resurgence of “call cramming” (when calls are arranged with no travel time allowance, forcing the care worker to either leave a call early or arrive at a call late) if providers face further fee reductions, as providers who allow for travel time between visits are more likely to become non-compliant with NMW than those who allow care workers to travel during the commissioned “contact time”.

We believe that BIS and HMRC could help the sector to achieve and maintain compliance by providing detailed information, aimed at employers, on the NMW regulations, particularly on the issue of travel time. The BusinessLink website contained some very useful information on NMW including how to calculate NMW and most importantly, what time counts towards working time for that compliance calculation. In the move to Gov.uk much of the detailed information has been lost in favour of a simplified guide to the NMW aimed at employees. Where are responsible employers supposed to find information now? We wrote to Ministers at BIS and the Cabinet Office to rais these concerns in November.

As an association, we produce information on NMW in domiciliary care for our members and have done so since the NMW was introduced. However, we still come across a lack of understanding among some providers, particularly around the calculation that HMRC use to assess travel time in our sector. We have raised this issue with BIS, the Low Pay Commission and the Cabinet Office.

We will continue to provide information to our members but if we could combine resources with BIS or HMRC to produce more detailed guidance (and reinstate the old BusinessLink guidance) it would benefit the whole sector.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
BSI standards could be used towards a basis for assisting regulators, driving up standards and enabling providers to achieve the highest level of care. Our standards are developed through a consensus-based approach using a wide group of stakeholders and a public consultation, which leads to the publication of best practice requirements for professions and can be used in support of existing legislation.

In terms of co-operative working, we are looking to develop a strategic relationship with CQC to assist with the regulatory burden placed on healthcare providers through better supporting light tough regulation. It is recognised that CQC has developed a common set of standards for health and social care, and across the wider sector, many of the standards have been developed by regulators or professional bodies.

BSI is already working with innovators within the healthcare system, for example telecare and telehealth providers, who are promoting independent living for the elderly, and dementia groups who are looking to actively improve the lives of those living with the condition, along with their care providers. We are aware of the Department of Health review into the merits of a rating system for hospitals and care homes and believe this could be an opportunity to develop new standards. We have been approached by independent assessors running their own voluntary certification schemes and some of the larger care providers regarding formal standardization of care homes. This is an area where our standards could help to develop credibility around the health and social care system, potentially leading to independent expert assessment and accreditation. BSI also works closely with the National Accreditation Body, UKAS, in order to consider common areas where standards and accreditation can support national service providers. Such collaborative work could provide a route towards independent standards and accreditation to provide CQC with the relevant information and evidence that is needed to drive improvements in the quality of health and social care in England.

The review of appeals mechanisms is a key part of a package of measures to improve regulatory delivery and enforcement which the Chancellor announced as part of his Autumn Statement. Again, the views and opinions you have expressed throughout our reviews have helped influence this package so thank you for your input so far and keep telling us what you think – your views really do make a difference!

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
As a social worker I worked extensively with older people particularly people with dementia. I feel that if anything there needs to be much stronger regulation in adult social care.

There needs to be regulation of adult social care services delivered by local authorities not only community mental health teams and practice in relation to quality of content and delivery of services is vital as happened in the old Social Services Inspectorates.

Supporting living projects have a few loopholes particularly around DoLs that need tightening up.

More unannounced inspections in places where people are wholly dependent on care staff and stronger enforcement actions.

Mostly I’d like to see reports that are much more detailed by inspectors and I’d like to see more use of local social services teams in planning and checking information as well as users and carers

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I am a Social Worker, employed as a Best Interests Assessor (BIA). This means that I carry out assessments to decide whether people in homes or hospitals are being deprived of their liberty and whether that is in their best interests. This role is part of DOLS (the Deprivation of liberty Safeguards) which were introduced in 2009.

In the first place, I am concerned that these important questions appear to have been dealt with as if they represent no more than a business issue relating to red-tape. Whilst I do not doubt that the paperwork around DOLS could and should be streamlined that is a minor issue compared with the safeguards themselves. The Managers of homes and hospitals can often find themselves in a position where they are preventing a person from leaving although the person themselves objects to being detained. The safeguards provide oversight of these circumstances, and a route by which a deprivation of liberty can be prevented, overturned by a court, or independently seen to be valid. It has surprised me, in the three years during which these safeguards have been in place, just how much that oversight has been valued. I can straightaway think of people who have returned to their own home because a DOLS trained doctor has established that they have no mental disorder, or because a BIA assesses that they have capacity to decide whether they should be placed in a home to receive care and treatment. [text deleted] would doubtless still be detained against his, and his father’s will, unless an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate had been appointed to help take his circumstances to the Court of Protection.

On the other side of the coin, we frequently deal with circumstances where hospitals, homes or familes are supported by these Safeguards. If your mother or aunt is angrily battering on the door of a secure unit in a home for people with dementia and shouting that she wishes to leave, then you may find it very valuable to have the support of an independent assessment which says that it is in her best interests to be placed there because no less restrictive alternative exists and they lack capacity to decide whether they should be there. Similarly, the staff of the home looking after such a person may feel very uncomfortable indeed about the situation but will value such an assessment. The thing which has most surprised me about these safeguards is just how often I am thanked by family and care staff for my intervention. The question of whether some-one should be deprived of their liberty is far more than a “business” decision about red tape. It is a profound and difficult set of legal, medical, and ethical issues which must in my view be dealt with sensitively and carefully.

I see from the list of regulations in question that the role of Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) arises. That role may be of vital importance to a person who is being held against their will. As a Best Interests Assessor I am bound to make a set of difficult and sometimes contentious judgements. I welcome the fact that there is an RPR with the power to get those judgements reviewed. It would also be a disaster if the roles of paid RPR ( an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate, IMCA, appointed if no friend or family member can be found) or IMCA to support an RPR were done away with. Such people can be vital in very difficult situations indeed. Without them I know off the top of my head straightaway of a man who would have died unhappy in a nursing home rather than in his own home a year or more after returning there.

If I myself was to reform the role of RPR it would be to make it compulsory for there to be a paid person to be involved one way or another. Either the RPR should be paid or there should be a paid person to support the friend or family member as a matter of course. All to often there is no IMCA with their detailed knowledge and experience of the Mental Capacity Act.

In addition , I am concerned to see the suggestion (if I have understood correctly) that the RPR could be appointed by “the organisation depriving the person of their liberty”. That would be a clear conflict of interests.

There appears to be question mark over the Mental Health Act Commissioner’s responsibility to monitor DOLS. I do not have a problem with that in principle, except that if the Commissioners are not to oversee the scheme then that oversight must be found elsewhere (and it must be effective).

There appears to be suggestion that the regulation which outlines the requirements for people such as myself who assess deprivations of liberty should be reviewed. At present one can only qualify as BIA if there has been a week’s training (in my case with an exam) and an annual refresher day. I have frequently found myself advising Solicitors about people’s legal rights under these Safeguards. If anything I would say that the present level of training is inadequate. More training is needed not less.

In my view the DOLS provisions are of tremendous importance to many people, whether with dementia, learning difficulties or head injuries, as well as to their loved ones and the people caring for them. I do not doubt that they could be streamlined (e.g. one form only for homes to request an authorisation, that is DOLS Forms 1 and 4 to be amalgamated) nor that they should be better known. There are undoubted problems with DOLS but none of the changes suggested in this consultation appear to me to be helpful. I would welcome a proper review of the Safeguards.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
We all agree that standards need to raised to a level commensurate with societies willingness to fund them. In an ideal world all vulnerable adults in care would live in a stimulating environment with excellent standards of care, however, we are living in today’s world where public funding has been reduced consistently over the last few years whilst the demand and the complexity of needs has increased significantly.
Managers in care homes spend all their time completing paperwork for various agencies. No two agencies agree on what they want or don’t want in care plans, local authority health & safety inspectors are in some cases not up to date with current guidance and legislation, external NHS staff are too often willing to judge and criticise staff in the private sector whilst turning a blind eye to worst practices in NHS hospitals. I could go on but I won’t.
I agree with several contributors that the multiple agencies who frequently visit care homes should actively co-operate to reduce the number of visits but make them much more effective. Politicians should stop making up more legislation on the hoof to curry favour with the media. Finally everyone has to accept that funding the existing care needs of today and the future is everyone’s responsibility. Finally we need to end the separation of care and funding between the NHS and Local Authorities, until they act and behave as a single organisation focused on delivering the right care to the right individuals in a seamless manner nothing will change. We also need to get off the public sector is great, private sector care is rubbish. There is plenty of evidence that elderly people with dementia are just as likely to be neglected in a hospital as in a care home.

I suspect this consultation however well intentioned will go the way of many others and result in no change at all which is probably why so few people have responded to date. The changes required are so far reaching in all areas to be beyond the interest of our elected representatives.

Good luck

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
1.The CQC regulation is a complete waste of time for residential care

2. Regulation of Domicilliary care is none existent

3. The whole approach to regulation is based on the the false premise that “essential standards as descibed on paper will ensure proper care.

4. You need to move to a new localised model based on the disabled and their families being in charge of reporting what actually happens to somebody who is prepared to act – not CQC who go out their way to avoid listening. Otherwise you will never know what is actually happening. I know how to measure quality in a rational, scientific way. Do yo actually want to listen?

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC),Fire safety (Fire Authority),Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Comment:
My Team enforces health and safety in care homes. When my officers inspect care homes, they appear to be mainly fighting fires, over-run with ‘paperwork’ and most importantly not understanding what to record and/or report.

Enforcement agencies need to join-up and maybe even do joint inspections to ensure care homes are fully compliant.

Poor incident logging, inadequate care plans, out-of-date training records, risk assessments not carried out or reviewed are just some of the issues regularly noted by my officers.

Employees are usually on the minimum wage, have poor commuincation skills, english is not the first language, poorly trained, work long hours, not supervised properly etc.

Recent examples of poor performance noted:
1) First floor windows in resident rooms without restrictors
2) Unguarded radiators in residents rooms
3) Resident falls requiring hospitalisation not recorded/reported
4) Smoking in enclosed areas
5) Residents left ‘unattended’ when car plans show regular monitoring is needed
6) Limited night time staff with no management support
7) Staff not having read care plans of residents they are looking after
8) Staff being given faulty equipment to use leading to accidents

As regulators we must simplify legal requirements to ensure that care homes and only require one method of recording information, ie an enforcement file that should be kept up-to-date by care homes and made available for inspectors upon request. There would then be no need for managers searching frantically for a fire risk assessment or health and safetyy policy etc during inspection. The homes polices and procedures should also be in the ‘File’ with dates.

Care Plans need to be re-thought and should be in a passport format –pages to be numbered and cannot be torn out or added in. Any annotations should be signed and dated.

To improve current enforcement HSE, LAs and CQC can work together and produce draft forms guidelines for the Care Homes to use and assist managers and staff to produce the above.

Training is another issue and national stanards need to be developed for enforcers to ensure compliance with. In the care home sector there is little or no Human Resources structure and so training is basic/limited, cetrtificates/qualifications are not checked/understood, refresher training is not carried out, training records are rarely up-to-date, and no appraisals are carried out.

In essence, there should be procedures in place to ensure that a co-ordinated approach/recording system, ie a single ‘Enforcement File’ is put into place for use by all enforcement agencies involved, ie LAs, Fire Officer HSE, CQC and others – working together to ensure that compliance is achieved.

The poor performers in this sector should not be allowed to get away from their legal duties and enforcement should be firm but fair. After all, these care homes are ‘businesses’ who are loooking after vulnerable persons who cannot look after themselves and recent media attention has highlighted the need for agencies to act ‘together’!

This is an opportunity for all agencies to work together with one common cause, ie a safe, caring and properly-run establishment that looks after residents and employees equally, fairly and with due care in order that their needs are met.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I am appaled at the standard of care that is currently being offered to the EMI, Dementia and Elderly people in this country. I have worked in the NHS and Private sector as a registered Nurse and have recently left a post after 16 years to go and work as an agency nurse. The level or lack of care I have observed is beyond belief – dirty foul smelling environment – people sat from 05,30 in a morning with no activites organised or funded for the rest of the day. Staff who are poorly trained – if at all. I do not blame the staff who are overwhelmed with the burdon of tasks just to get people out of bed, washed (not bathed) dressed, fed and then the rounds of medication begin before the relentless round of tasks before ready for bed at 6.00pm. I fail to comprehend how the CQC can justify that these homes ,that are only about profit and not for the standard of care to the people who live there. I have witnessed no paper in toilets, no hand wash, paint peeling on walls, pads counted for each persons daily use, 1 vehicle for over 30 people, no activity fund to plan or achieve activities or outings. This I have witnessed in one visit – how on earth do the CQC not see this when they visit – what questons are they asking, what observations are they making, I have to post the question who trains this regulatory body . I would not keep my dog in these so called’Nursing homes’ THEY NEED TO BE RENAMED PERSON SITTING SERVICE. The large organisations who pretent to provide good quality care should be ashsamed of themselves. I have talked to staff who are so demotivated as they are not listened to when they try to improve the services. Why do the organisations not have to evidence how much they spend on protective equipment for the staff, stationary ( I found that 1 sercive did not have a biro for the staff to use – I had to leave one of mine to help them do their job) why is no evidence of each persons daily routine not a recomendation that the CQC can view on their visits. This would stive to demonstrate that the people in these homes have some kind of quality of life and are not just some objects on a production line. My view is that the care is no better than that provided by the Institutional Hospitals that were forced to close in the 1980′s. Somebody has to care and take action to improve the lives of these people. Dignity and choice have to given to these poor souls who are unable to speak up for themselves.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
my wife works in a care home. my mother-in-law had 2 respite stays in care homes in the last year. i work in an admin role in adult social care.
i concerned that standards of elderly care in residential homes is falling, almost across the board, due to financial pressures.
recent changes in eligibility criteria by local authorities have meant that residents placed in care and nursing homes by local authorities have much higher care needs than was previously the case.
this has had two major detrimental effects. 1.) they need more support from staff (leaving less to go around) 2.) they are much less able to provide assistance or mental stimulation to other residents.
it also limits constructive dialogue between homes management and its residents.
the outcome of this all is that homes are focussing on meeting their legal obligations, particularly for heath and safety, and neglecting quality of life matters such as socialising.
my mother-in-law had 3 weeks in a care home following a fall resulting in a broken hip. in that time she did not leave her room. she was lifted out of bed in the morning and placed in a chair to watch tv. she only saw staff when they brought her meals or took her to the en-suite toilet; she did not meet any other residents.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
Care provision is very varied but most I have seen is mediocre at best
Service users have told me they are concerend that they cannot understand their carers due to English not being their first language. They have also told me that many carers are often unfriendly due to being overworked.
Service user independance is often not promoted
Service user indiviuality is often not respected
Too few care homes provide any regular stimulation or activities
There is never sufficient staff
Care staff do not appear knowledeable about the individual residents
Residents do not have choices ie what to eat/drink/wear
There is hardly ever any outings
Residents often seem to be treated like children

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I have been working in a variety of roles within the field of Health and Social Care for over 25 years including several years as a regulator, firstly with a Local Authority and then NCSC and its successor CSCI. I have therefore first hand knowledge of inspections from both sides of the fence.
It continues to amaze me how regulatory agencies such as CQC fails in its primary responsibility which is to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. The introduction of risk responsive regulation is in principle a good idea, targeting those services which do not comply with the regulatory framework. However this has resulted in service standards slipping across other services previously judged to be ok. I would also echo the comments of other contributors who criticize the current inspection processes. The answer lies not in reducing regulatory burdens or changing the focus of inspection activity. The answer lies in accepting that to adequately protect vulnerable people we need action across a range of areas including staff status, pay and conditions, training, corporate responsibility from care providers, increased frequency of truly unannounced inspections, better protection for whistleblowers, and the realization that this cannot be achieved without investment from Government, the care sector and where appropriate contribution from those receiving care.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I have 25 years experience of working in the field of older people care (Help The Aged and latterly Age UK).

I jointly managed the CQC funded Experts by Experience programme and I have worked for a nationlal care home group, devising activity programmes. I am currently advising another care home group on their activity provision.

I would like to suggest that a Friends Group is established in every care home, with funding being provided to faciliate it.

Many homes feel unable to respond to projects which will benefit their residents and as such a group would be a collaboration between residents, family carers, care home staff and community volunteers, it would be a valuable support mechanism for the home.

It would also provide a practical link between the home and the local community, where resources are often available.

In addition, it would act as a hub, both to identify activity elements that would be beneficial to residents and family carers and to provide a workforce within the home to make things happen.

Hopefully it will survive management changes so that a positive culture, once created in the home, is maintained, despite the high turnover of staff in care homes.

The Friends Group could also lead on fundraising, giving the activity co-ordinator access to ring-fenced funds to finance therapeutic activities (including training).

Where this happens, it is usually down to the determination of the home manager (often against the pressure of a stressful internal regime) and an enthusiastic activity co-ordinator, who probably works more hours than they get paid for.

Where an active Friends Group exists, there is a need to promote it as an example of good practice. The problem is that those homes which have one, don’t tend to shout about it and those who do nothing can hide behind the excuse of having inadequate staff and financial resources.

[text deleted]

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
We are proud of being assessed as maintaining a good quality of service but we are increasingly aware that we are being required to maintain high standards, whilst our income, in real terms is diminishing, as costs rise. We are also expected to maintain hih quality staffing with all the relevant training. We have not been able to offer a pay rise to our staff for three years and less people are seeing this area of work as a viable career choice. This means that suitable candidates are harder to find. As a provider of services to people who have learning disabilities and a parent of two adults who have learning disabilities, my fear is that the present strictures within which we work could lead to more Winterbourne’s. Too often, Governments look at short term solutions, only to cause long term problems

On Wednesday 21^st November we met with the National Care Forum who have been running for 20 years, and represent 1,600 not-for-profit care organisations.  Following this, on Thursday 22^nd November we attended a seminar called “Health & Safety – Dignity or Red Tape – Where do you stand?” which was run by the National Association for Safety and Health in Care Services (NASHiCS). The seminar was run for the members of NASHiCS who had kindly invited us to attend and give a 5 minute overview presentation about our care homes review.  

These were really interesting, valuable and helpful meetings for our review research as we were able to hear a wide range of industry views and experiences which has given us plenty of information to follow up on.

Please keep posting any comments you have as we’d love to hear from you!

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I have experience of caring for my father and observing the support he received in the community. In addition, I deliver training to care homes and home care providers on a professional basis.

The key underlying problem in the sector is the lack of training and skills. CQC inspectors do not know what to look for when it comes to training and I have seen both professionally and personally, how this impacts on quality of care. I am amazed at how some care organisations get away with little or no training despite it being quite clear in CQC and Skills For Care guidance. In terms of my father, during a review with a social worker and manager they agreed that it didnt say anywhere what training was required- WRONG! This care provider was looking after people like my father with dementia and the staff had no idea what they were doing

From a professional perspective, just because theres a certificate in a staff members file does not mean they have either done the training or it is making an impact in terms of outcomes. DVDs are NOT training, they are a cheap way of keeping inspectors off a care homes back and as the inspectors dont know what to look for, the care provision suffers.

Too many senior staff are great carers but have no leadership or management training to complement this. The result is managers who are unprepared for their role. Questions to ask:

1 Who supervises managers- most independents have NO support and are isolated leading to failures
2. Who ensures the training adds value- no one because inspectors dont know what to look for
3. Ask any domiciliary care provider to list their clients and then see which staff have training for each individual condition- most wont
4. Ask how much is spent per staff member on training and development

After 14 years in the care sector it is obvious that problems are ignored by inspectors- until Winterbourne type events when they come down like a ton of bricks and the quality of staff is not improving. There are some good providers out there but ask anyone with input in any geographical area to recommend a nursing or care home for a friend- we just dont do it because the provision is so poor

Rant over- back to work making a difference! Some care providers do care but too many dont as profit comes first! Definately rant over!

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
Inspections need to be more rigorous and standardised. Actions need to be followed up sooner if there are any complaints or concerns.
Inspectors need to understand and have knowledge and experience of the setting they are inspecting.

We’ll keep you updated with our progress as we continue through the review!

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I currently work in a nursing home as a senior care assistant and IPC lead, i am comenting on the paperwork involved on looking after our residents. I understand the importance of documentation within their care plans but there are other paperwork that is required. For example after attending to each resident we have forms to fill in before leaving their room, food and fluid charts, mattress charts, turning charts, personal care charts. these charts have to be maintained throughout the day and i believe are sometimes unneccesary. I also understand that if evidence is not written down then it didnt happen and this is the case to show CQC evidence. In my opinion and others that i work with this takes time away from our residents, how are we supposed to give 100% person-centred care when we have to spend more time filling in paperwork, this needs to be reduced dramaticly, i believe residents not just in our home but other homes are suffering because of this and things are being missed. This needs to be looked at and changed and more focus on giving residents care than showing evidence, How about having a food and fluid chart for residents who are ill or show a decrease in their diet and weight instead of showing that they have actually been fed, and abolish mattress charts and personal care charts, How about concentrating on writing that information in their care plans about their daily activity? i think CQC are focusing on the evidence more than the individual because of bad stigma from unproffessional health workers, maybe tougher inspections. As we know there is a new code of practice to ensure new staff have a 12 week induction but this will not happen in some homes as they simply do not have time and are understaffed, how about concentrating on the staff numbers? how can CQC and the NMC think that a minimum number of staff is adequate? it simply isnt, with all the paperwork involved and trying to give person-centred care it cannot be done therefore residents in homes are going to suffer. gone are the days when you can spend time with a resident during personal care, giving them time in the mornings to get dressed and enjoy daily activities or sitting down with them and talking to them? we cant! because we have paperwork to do!! this needs to change and it needs to change now. Does CQC actually understand about giving care and the complexity of looking after a human being? does CQC think that 30 mins is long enough to give a human being good care? does CQC care more about evidence than people??? I understand that this is being done because of cases of neglect but i personally think this is down to CQC not being tough on inspections or acting quickly to complaints and neglect shouldnt happen in care homes at all but thats down to the people that are employed! some healthcare proffesionals are not caring in nature and are only after a pay packet so i do agree that healthcare workers should be registered and monitored and not just some slap dash person after money without an ounce of care in their nature, but then you get employers and people that own homes who are only interested in making a quick profit, they dont care about their residents, they will always make sure they meet regulations but it doesnt mean that they care about their people only the money that they gain. please change this!!!!

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I have found from discussion with Providers in my role as a commissioner of sevices from Care Homes. That their experiences with the CQC often cause them frustration in that the feedback on their performance is delayed so slowing the resolution process.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC),Local Authority or Fire Authority

Comment:
There is so much duplication at present in the system between CQC who are our named regulators and who I agree should have the job of measuring the care we provide against the essential standards we must all comply with. However in addition to that EACH local authority who commission care from us also want to assess us by a further set of standards and rules set out bt ADASS ( which may vary slightly from authority to authority or be implemented differently meaning you have four or five different sets of standards/toolbooks to comply with and report on) and these are often even more draconian and seem to go in the oppostie direction of CQC as whilst CQC seem to be ( and in my opinion rightly so) focussing on outcomes for service users the local authorities are more bogged down with focusing on policies and procedures and now in addition as nursing homes we have the PCT or soon to be clinical commissioning groups who have brought in a whole load of further reporting requirements ( more suited for large acute hospitals and huge care providers and penalise smaller and medium sized care homes due to the hugely increased administrative burden again taking managers and carers away from the most important job in hand) under the new National Care Homes contracts . In fact the document we received from one of our local PCT’s starts by saying these are requirements over and above requirements set by CQC and other regulators. The crazy thing is even neighbouring PCT’s want different things reported on at different frequencies eg Luton and Bedfordshire and the monthly reports want info on all manner of things such as complaints, staffing, SOVA’s ( which are already reported to CQC and the local authorities), notifications made to CQC as well as a 110 other things which is crazy duplication required on our part and is threatening the ability of smaller and medim sized care homes to cope in these financially constrained times due to the increased admin burden and time taken away from the important job of caring. It is like we currently have three bodies assesing the care provided. We are also required to provide info under the NHS safety thermometer and too many bodies are asking for the same info and I really question who on earth within these organisatins has the time to process all the info we are required to provide and what real value half the info required will have on the practical care provided. In addition now we are required to provide all this info to qualify for a CQUIN payment which is meant to be based on quality of care provided but this is a joke as PCT’s are cutting the rates given to be able to afford this payment and the reporting required of us as smaller and medium care homes is as draconian as the acute hospitals. We are required to have NHS net accounts etc when care homes are not the same as the NHS. There is one area I feel though where CQC should be given more powers and that is to require care providers to have to provide detailed references on staff to other providers as many care providers to avoid employment claims against them by staff for vicitimisation have taken the easy option of refusing to provide references and will simply tell you when a nurse/carer started work and left which to me is unacceptable when dealing with vulnerable service users and in order to ensure good quality care we need as employers to know the view of current employers and to safeguard our service users. To me this is an area that must be addressed and despite raising it with CQC this has not changed anything. I feel if CQC alone were left to do their job and there was a system for good quality care to be recognised beyond being found to be compliant as was with the the old star rating of CSCI it would allow providers to focus on the job at hand than having to currently deal with what seems to be three regulators of care ie CQC, PCT and local authorities and all the admin burden that has been generated as a result. Each local authority also keeps changing the contracts required to be signed with all the reporting requirements it seems every few years again causing more work. If you wish to see all the templates we have for reporting to the various authorities or to discuss this further I am more than happy to oblige. Please help us and this country save money and time by creating one system of regulation by CQC alone. Whilst I can see PCT’s may want and need to know issues such as number of pressure sores and UTI’s etc I cannot see how half the other things they ask is neccesary and does not duplicate what CQC are already monitoring. It is like having someone to check what someone else is already doing.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I think the way the current inspectors from cqc work is much better, espacially when they observe and staff, talk to the residents, families and staff. This should be kept. Although some inspectors place too much emphasis on paperwork and not enough of the provision of care and how the residents are feeling about the service and staff. The cqc should keep the well trained and experience inspectors.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
The problem care homes have is multiple and sometimes conflicting regulatory regimes. We have the overarching presence of CQC. Then if we contract to a council we have their regulatory regime and inspection. If we contract with one or more different councils we end up with different regulatory regimes, all of whom can ( and do) inspect us.

In addition if you contract the the NHS they also have a separate regulatory reigime and inspection.

All of these regimes can conflict with each other so whatever to provider does he has been non compliant to someone!

It is like having a unique MOT for your car for every different county you drive through. All having different standards and emphasis. Why can’t NHS and councils just rely on one “MOT” completed by CQC.

Our life would be easier and it would save a fortune in public money

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
The recent scandle(s) within health and social care provision especially those involving residential care of vulnerable adults highlighted a problem that I feel is flawed within the system of CQC/CSSIW regulation. Based upon my own experiences working within the residential (dementia) sector I am slowly beginning to understand how homes such as [deleted text] have managed to pass in the eyes of the inspectorate. The needs of those whom we look after and the managerialist agenda of the corporations within which we work are completely divergent. I am yet to see an “unannounced” inspection where the home I work for was not prepared for the visit and the “announced” inspections are quite frankly a joke. Inspection days are not representative of the realities of working day-to-day in a care home. While I am lucky enough to work for a home that has genuine concern for the residents and operates within holistic and person centered policies, the staffing levels and levels of training are substandard at times, dangerous at others (but never on inspection days). If the theory surrounding enforcement policy is to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation why sometimes does it feel like companies are only complicit for the sake of “quality control”, “outcome monitoring” “performance management” and associated other catchall buzzwords more suited to a retail business. The regulatory requirements feel like a some time thing rather than a set of requirements that the CQC/CSSIW are able to enforce completely.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I have been closely involved with the inspection of care homes since 1992 and recognise two major problems with the way care services are inspected resulting in inconsistency, unfairness and serious errors of judgement.
1. Methodology – Inspectors and their managers continue to inspect by finding any weakness and linking the weakness backwards to the national standards or ‘Outcomes’, justifying their ‘judgement’ by the evidence for that particular weakness. This method is not a method for correctly assessing the quality of anything and results in no more than a guess at the state of the service. There continues to be some confusion about the role of inspectors in respect of enforcement versus commenting on the ‘quality’ of services. Their published guidance is clear, they just don’t follow it.
2. There appears to be no quality assurance process within CQC which picks up the fact that inspectors are not using the correct methodology and therefore are making some serious errors of judgement.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I am a health and safety professional currently working for an insurance company as an advisor to surveyors on issues to assess when carrying out liability surveys in a range of business – including a large amount in the care sector. I have previously been a health and safety manager/advisor for a social housing provider (inlcuding sheltered care), an elderly and disability care charity and several general elderly care homes. I also have an elderly mother and mother-in-law and I am very conscious that this issue is not “someone else’s problem ” It is very much an issue that should concern all members of society – if for no other reason than that at some point- it is where we may all end up ! This problem is huge – too big for CQC to cover effectively- and will get bigger as more people live longer and the baby boomers of the 60′s and 70′s reach old age – it needs sorting out now and I believe policy makers should be looking to engage with, recruit and train members of the public as volunteer inspectors of this sector, especially those with an imminent vested interest in the quality of care and protection they may receive in their final days i.e. the elderly and middle aged – possibly through organisations such as Age UK. My mother is 91 and my mother-in-law 86. They are both intelligent, articulate people who would be more than capable (and would enjoy feeling involved and their views valued) to carry out inspections of care homes if given a small amount of resource/support. There must be many others like them ranging from those approaching retirement or semi-retirement and who would be better to express opinions on the quality of care being provided ?

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
It is not regulation which is a burden in the care industry but the requirement to prove that you are complying with the regulation by way of evidence. For instance, today we received a request from an inspector to provide them with a “dependency risk assessment” to show how we me the dependency of each service user in our care home. I firstly can not see why we have to spend time, money and effort to get this information to the inspector when he can come to our care home to see if we are doing the same. Secondly, we would have far more time to care for people and meet the regulations if we did not have to keep proving that we were doing so.

Focus area: Adult Care Homes

Regulator concerned: Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Comment:
I own and operate an SME manufacturing company specialising in Signage and visual products. We saw an opportunity following an enquiry to provide specialised signs and and visual aids to carers and suffers of Dementia. Our products are proven to:
Improve overall communication
Give back a degre of independence and dignity
Stimulate Memory
Reduce Frustration
Our products have been embraced by the sector of homes that are willing to improve theor patients lives. The Care Comission are determined to see any intiative to improve the lifes of Dementia patients there is no legislation that can actually force care home providers to provide an environment of that addresses the four key elements. After extensive research we found patients staring at blank walls and were living a life of isolation. There have been great examples of innovation by companies like ourselves that provide cost effective solutions that make a world of differnce to both carers and sufferers but no real legislation to make this an industry standard. [deleted text]

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
My background is assessing evacuation processes and procedures with the focus on customers and employees who have either an intellectual or physical accessibility challenge.

If we take a person with severe hearing difficulties for example – certain levels of deafness is so profound that even a hearing aid can not register the pulse of certain fire alarm systems.

In a Workshop that I facilitated, I blindfolded 15 people and then announced, “FIRE, please evacuate the building”. You can imagine the chaos that occurred conducting this exercise”.

I understand that this may be off subject but all types and sizes of businesses have to realise that their employees and customers have differing needs – and in an event of an evacuation – processes and procedures need to be executed with the necessity of helping people to safety.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
We were inspected yesterday. On arrival, we presented the Fire Officer with the required paperwork which he inspected and we then toured the premises. Our paperwork was in order (Test records, Risk Assessment, Fire Emergency Plan, Fire Plan and PAT testing) which seemed to re-assure the Fire Officer there were unlikely to be any issues. He was constructive and invited us to ask any queries we had.
Previous (different) Fire Officers have raised issues which we regarded as over the top – specifically he suggested we should lock up our stock of toilet rolls in case of arson, when guests could start a fire with just 1. Some previous visits raised what we regarded as ‘gold plating’ as well, which again seems to have been addressed.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Self-Certification – In February 2013, British Standards Institution will publish the UK’s first standard on the subject of Organisational Fire Risk Management Systems. We are working with four UKAS accredited, Third Party Certification bodies on the scheme and our methodology is already internationally accepted within other disciplines such as Health & Safety, Business Continuity. This will enable fire authorities to focus their enforcement efforts on organisations that are not regularly audited by independent third party certification bodies. This standard is being developed by industry for industry and we have the good and the great of fire safety on our steering group and are already piloting this on a number of high profile organisations in different sectors. More than happy to provide more information on this initiative to anyone who is interested. It has been an amazing learning curve and will be a massive benefit to UK fire safety, but it can easily go global as our methodology is based on the management system approach contained in existing international standards.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Sample documentation provided by fire authorities needs to be appropriate to the premises. We are pleased that West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services are prepared to allow a village hall run by volunteers to use sample documentation prepared specifically for village halls (by a retired fire officer from another county) in preparing their own Fire Risk Assessment and Fire Safety Log Book, rather than the larger and less appropriate sample documentation provided by the FRS for business venues, which are more likely to be staffed.

Focus area: Coastal investments and projects

Regulator concerned: Marine Management Organisation (MMO)

Comment:
All marine planning should be fully integrated and aligned with terrestial planning; local planning authorities must therefore be statutory consultees in the marine planning process.
The principles of ICZM’s are fully incorporated, marine planning respects local terrestial planning frameworks and the needs and views of local communities and authorities are incorporated.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
I would like to support Jack Kernohan’s comments and urge the need and importance of training our fire safety officers better in all aspects of fire safety and giving them clearer understanding of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005 and stressing the importance of updating themselves with the relevant British Standards so they are able to quote them correctly.

I feel that having standardised set paragraphs for officers to use for different contraventions I.e. fire alarms, means of escape etc like we did for the old ‘Fire Precautions Act 1971 as a way forward. This will help to deliver the same quality and level of advice and guidance to the ‘responsible person’.

I feel standards are falling in areas of fire safety and with the right training and focus on certain areas i feel we can improve on this.but there definitely needs to be a drive to push this forward for it to happen.

I feel some of our standard letters which are sent out are appalling anddo not look professional so i think there should be some sort of quality assurance put in place, where someone is given the job to sample letters across different fire safety delivery areas and are given training by identifying which officers or typists need it. The budget cuts should not have an effect on our professional standards as an Authority in areas where we have an influence.

To summarise :
- better training and understanding of the Fire Safety Order
- keeping updated with current British Standards
- need for standardised set paragraphs for various contraventions that officers can use
- quality assurance put in place to check standard of letters and information being sent out to the public.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
It is difficult for a small company to fully understand the need for a Fire Risk Assessment. If you use common sense and make your company safe this is easy but to put it in writing is difficult for many small companies. I went on the internet and found an assessment written by a fire brigade and adopted the text to our company. Now our Fire Risk Assessment is 10 pages and the conclusion is that we comply with all the regulations and have no fire risk.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
I would be interested to learn of how other organisations have dealt with the dual issue of ensuring that they comply with building control/fire safety legislation in providing/maimatining fire escape windows on 1st (and above) floors of premises while at the same time ensuring that service users/residents are not exposed to the risk of falling from these windows. On one hand we are required to provide fire escape windows, while at the same time we are required to assess the potential risk of falling from windows and potentially fit tamperproof window restrictors – whatever decision we make can be crucial to the safety of our service users/residents.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
as a Fire risk assessor and highly qualified ex Fire Authority Fire Safety officer I have become aware that more and more Officers who visit premises do not know what the guidance documents are or how to apply the Regulations.
1 example of a premises visited by a fire officer. The owner contacted me in a panic as the fire officer threatened to close her guest house down if she didnt do the work he wanted then issued an enforcement notice that gave her 18 months to do the work.
2 example a fire officer issued an enforcement notice to provide fire resisting glazing under and external staircase. it was not required as the premises had a protected internal staircase and the external was only there for easier access into the gardens by occupants. The inside of the premises was not inspected
3 example a hotel I am acquainted with, asked the local fire officer if they could remove an external fire escape on the outside of their 3 storey hotel. the fire officer said it was ok without visiting just said include it in your risk assessment, which they did. they now have more bedrooms but no protected staircase from the upper floors.

the standards of enforcement is getting poorer which I presume is due to the current economic climate and cut back in training, coupled with no national training, I am finding that each Fire Authority is applying different standards and guidance in relation to fire safety and enfocrment.
I am aware that the regulations where supposed/designed to be enforced but with cutbacks this is no longer possible and the enforcing authorites I come in to contact with, no longer offer advice or guidance they actually direct premises to get in an outside consultant to undertake their fire risk assessment.
Apparently [deleted text] when they send a letter out to premises, to inform them they are going to inspect, include a letter telling them to use [deleted text] fire risk assessors before the enforcing officer arrives

So I believe that the standards of enforcement vary drastically from area to area and will not change until there is standardised national training for enforcing officers from each authority as they now appear to be very poorly trained, and I am making a lot of money out of fire risk assessments that are not needed and consultations.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
We are writing jointly on behalf of the BWF-CERTIFIRE Fire Door and Doorset Scheme, and the Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS)

The BWF-CERTIFIRE Scheme is the UK’s leading authority on fire door safety. Through BWF-CERTIFIRE around 1.6 million fire doors are tested and certified in the UK.

The Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS) is the first such scheme in Europe, designed to improve safety and save lives through creating a new pool of expertise and competence related to Fire Doors to help those with legal responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (FSO).

We recognise that all businesses are under severe cost pressure and applaud the FSO for the impact it has had on making companies aware of their responsibilities with respect to fire. We are, however, concerned that the legislation is at times not effectively communicated or enforced stringently enough.

A fire doorset is a performance engineered product and it only functions properly when installed correctly with all the right components. Many questionable decisions are made during fire risk assessments due to a lack of expertise from individual assessors and inspectors on what constitutes a fire door. This is corroborated by a more general lack of clarity within the FSO and Approved Document B of the Building Regulations. The wording of the FSO is vague in places and can allow an overly subjective definition. Terms such as, “so far as is reasonably practicable” and “where necessary” are used, for example when laying out the obligations of the responsible person. This has enabled building owners to find loopholes within the legislation and we are even aware of local authorities who have been adopting separate 3rd party information documents in an attempt to remove subjectivity. We fear that this is often built around convenience rather than effective practice and could go as far as undermining the intention of the FSO.

BWF-CERTIFIRE has recently written to [Deleted Text], the minister responsible for Building Regulations, regarding the importance of third party certification and making it more explicit within existing regulations. Our concern is that, particularly in the current climate, building contractors and owners are often pressurised into ‘value engineered’ specifications. It is vital through the FSO that they are made fully aware of the consequences that not selecting a third party certificated fire door may have. There is opportunity to help clarify the difference between a so-called ‘tested product’, a product with a certificate, and proper third-party, independently certificated fire doors. Only the latter gives any true guarantee of performance. In too many cases, the wrong product is being specified and installed, and there is also a common failure to comply with Regulation 38 of the Building Regulations, as a result of inadequate or incomplete documentation on fire door performance being passed on to the responsible person.

Beyond selecting the right door, we receive many reports from members flagging up poor installation of fire doors – this would be alleviated if competent person schemes were extended to include the installation of fire doors, possibly as part of a wider fire protection reform. It still seems nonsensical that such critical equipment has no requirement. This will support enforcement of the FSO as standards will improve and inspectors will have better information available to assess the quality of an entire installation.

Once the correct fire doors are installed in any building, the challenge of the FSO then becomes their effective inspection, maintenance and replacement. In almost every prosecution and report relating to the FSO, the lack of understanding of the role and use of fire doors is evident. This year we have seen the prosecution of a Bideford hotel for malfunctioning fire doors, including reports from guests of a terrifying moment in May when fire raged through the hotel and they became trapped in smoke-filled corridors because a door had jammed shut and another had no door handle.

With similar reports of fire door failures cropping up with alarming regularity, we have an ever-growing dossier of cases where fire doors are no longer compliant, have been badly damaged or were simply never given any attention since they were first installed.

We are also concerned that, as a result of unclear advice there are seemingly inconsistent rulings on the FSO which could lead some building owners to believe they do not need to worry about the state of their fire doors if sprinklers or other measures are in place. The respective role of passive and active fire protection must be better recognised.

Although the current guidance issued by DCLG recommends the provision of intumescent strips and smoke seals on bedroom doors in hotels, the market has been confused by contradictory guidance on the need for such measures, particularly in the case of flats and apartments.

In this climate of uncertainty, determinations such as, “Determination on the suitability and sufficiency of a fire risk assessment in a hotel in respect of the adequacy of the existing bedroom fire doors” could be selectively misinterpreted to justify the omission of intumescent and smoke seals, driven by financial considerations and not by any informed or objective evaluation of fire risk.

Finally, BWF-CERTIFIRE Scheme members have expressed concerns that fire safety enforcement can be inconsistent from one area to another, and are worried that the level of enforcement is on occasion determined not by a drive to make the FSO work, but by an understanding that the legal costs and time involved would be prohibitive for the both parties.

All of us who use or occupy any building have a right to expect that we will be safely protected should a fire break out. This is being put at risk by the lack of clear, mandatory and well enforced fire safety instructions. The problem appears to be growing, especially in the capital, with the London Fire Brigade recently noting that an increase in serious fires in new and refurbished buildings has been due to faulty workmanship during and after construction, poor specification of materials and a lack of adequate building control and signoff.

We are hopeful that FDIS provides an industry-led initiative that will help support the Responsible Person in determining the safety of existing Fire Doors and will create a body of expertise here in the UK, however, the FSO enforcement needs to be more stringent and, as with the Building Regulations, clearer to ensure those responsible know where they stand.

With kind regards,

Gary Amer, Chairman, Fire Door Inspection Scheme
Iain McIlwee, Chief Executive, British Woodworking Federation

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Fire safety enforcement accross the UK is inconsistent and multi site businesses which are accustomed to the “primary authority” scheme for food safety and health and safety cannot comprehend why such a scheme is not available for fire safety.
Fire officers believe that the guidance for business is regulation not guidance.
Some fire officers believe that guest houses need sprinkler systems and have difficulty in believing that the costs will bankrupt the business.
Ex fire officers have set themselves up as consultants without established competance and have charged small businesses for fire risk assessments which are not fit for purpose.
Many small hospitality businesses do not understand the concept of “risk assessment” and use a consultant to have it carried out but subsequently forget they need to keep it up to date.
There is no recognised fire safety training standard.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
1 Background to this response

1.1 Established in 1963, [Deleted Text] is dedicated to providing choice and independence for older people and is one of the largest specialist providers of retirement housing and related support services for older people throughout England. [Deleted Text] manages nearly 19,000 retirement and Extra Care properties, which are available for rent or purchase on more than 650 estates in over 175 local authority areas.

1.2 [Deleted Text] is the innovator of Extra Care retirement housing with additional on-site support and facilities, with developments in 60 locations. We employ a dedicated workforce of nearly 1,000 individuals who provide our residents with a highly professional and personalised service.

1.3 The corporate headquarters is in [ Deleted Text] board is chaired by [Deleted Text] and [Deleted Text] is the chief executive.

1.4 Although we are not a small or medium-sized business, our geographic spread means that we are affected by the implementation of the RRFSO as though we were a series of small businesses. The inconsistency of application of the RRFSO we experience as a result of work with large numbers of Fire and Rescue Authorities, will be discussed in more detail in our feedback.

1.5 This response was produced by [Deleted Text] Health and Safety Manager, [Deleted Text] BSc DipNEBOSH GradIOSH MIIRSM, GIFireE, MIFPO, supported by our Health and Safety Consultant, [Deleted Text], an OSHCR Registered Consultant.

2 How and where you access information about fire safety issues, your
legal obligations, and how to comply with the law?

2.1 [Deleted Text] has in-house expertise in fire safety, and also accesses support from Fire Safety Consultants, where appropriate. We are happy to continue to access advice in this way. This allows us to tailor our solutions to the needs of our residents, as well as achieving legal compliance.

2.3 [Deleted Text] has significantly invested in improving fire safety at its estates over the last 18months. This includes investing in staff training to support the roll out of a new Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) approach and rolling out a new Fire Safety Strategy and associated Guidance. We have also invested heavily in consultant’s time, to assist us to implement the new FRA process. We are now in the process of implementing the recommendations from the new FRA reports.

2.4 When we have looked externally for assistance in interpreting the RRFSO, it is usual to be directed to the local Fire and Rescue Authority for advice. However, as we work with so many Authorities, this is not a viable solution. This is because we have identified significant inconsistency in the way they apply the RRFSO. In some cases this inconsistency is so significant that Authorities in different areas give contradictory instructions. This inconsistency is likely to produce challenges to any business working in two or more Authority areas.

3 What information you need, and how you would prefer to access
advice and guidance on fire safety matters.

3.1 We are aware of the various guidance documents currently available. Although these can be helpful, they pose a challenge for us where they contradict each other or our FRAs which have been completed by competent assessors. The guidance is also problematic because their legal status is unclear.

3.2 There is a particularly challenge when Fire Enforcement Officers selectively quote from guidance documents in their correspondence to us, as though they were regulations. For example, we have received a Notice of Deficiency that required us to install equipment based on an excerpt from the DCLG ‘Sleeping Accommodation’ Guidance. The excerpt was incomplete, as it excluded the sentence which made this recommendation inappropriate in the building being discussed.

3.3 We are therefore of the opinion that the current guidance is not the optimal solution. We would prefer the regulatory system for fire safety to mirror that for health and safety. This would mean having a single, unified, enforcing authority, who produced Approved Codes of Practise and Guidance, where the legal status of these documents was clear.

4 Activity undertaken by fire and rescue authorities to support you with
business compliance.

4.1 We have a very mixed experience of working with Fire Enforcement Officers, with significant variation in perception of risk and methods of working with us.

4.2 Some Fire Enforcement Officers listen when we explain that [Deleted Text] is making a step-change in fire safety and are willing to take a ‘light touch’ approach, offering advice and support while allowing us the time to implement our improvement programme. However, in most cases, Fire Enforcement Officers have stopped providing informal advice, as they focus on enforcement and associated targets. Therefore we have experienced a significant increase in Notices of Deficiency, even where Fire Enforcement Officers acknowledged that we already have a plan to improve fire safety and were implementing it.

4.3 In a significant number of cases, Fire Enforcement Officers do not appear to understand when we explain the nature of our buildings and the service we provide, and produce inappropriate recommendations as a result. For example, they confuse our retirement housing estates with care homes, and apply the DCLG Residential Care guidance in error. Where third party contractors are based at our buildings, the Fire Enforcement Officers frequently misunderstand our responsibilities and serve a Notice of Deficiency on us, for a failure by the third party (for example to provide training to their staff) which should have led to a Notice served on the third party. A specific example is where care teams are based on our site but are contracted by the Local Authority and have no contractual relationship with us.

4.4 At the other extreme we have had several incidents of Fire Enforcement Officers intimidating our front-line staff (Estate Managers), in some cases to the point of leaving our staff in tears. In most cases this appears to be because the Fire Enforcement Officer has failed to understand Article 48 of the RRFSO, which allows a ‘Body Corporate’ to be the ‘Responsible Person’ for a building. Fire Enforcement Officers have told Estate Managers or their line managers (Housing Managers) that they (the member of staff) are the ‘Responsible Person’ and they will be at risk of going to prison if they do not do what the Fire Enforcement Officer says.

4.5 In general, we find working with Fire Enforcement Officers to be a hindrance to our business. We have found some failures in understanding and significant inconsistency in application of the RRFSO. This results in lost time for staff while we respond to Fire Enforcement Officers. In 2011, for example, we successfully worked with Fire Enforcement Officers so they rescinded three Fire Enforcement Notices. We also prevented a threatened prosecution over the location of a single fire extinguisher by sustained effort from our Health and Safety Manager, a solicitor, QC and a fire safety expert witness (incurring significant expense in the process).

5 The interaction your business has with fire and rescue authorities on
the business premises.

5.1 As outlined above, there is significant variation in the way that Fire Enforcement Officers behave while they are on our estates.

5.2 In some cases, Fire Enforcement Officers are very personable and helpful to the local staff. However, as noted before, they have significantly reduced the amount of informal advice they provide. Therefore they frequently return to the office and (often using template letters) write what sometimes appear to be aggressive Notices of Deficiency to our Housing Managers. Rarely do they serve letters correctly on our Company Secretary.

5.3 In other cases they are officious, aggressive or rude to our front-line staff. As a result, we now advise our Estate Managers to ensure they are accompanied for Fire Enforcement Officers by at least one manager, to assist in managing any unreasonable behaviour.

5.4 In many cases, Fire Enforcement Officers who are unhappy with the conclusions in our FRAs serve a Notice of Deficiency saying we have failed to complete a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. We believe that coming to a different conclusion to that preferred by that particular Fire Enforcement Officer, or even a particular Fire and Rescue Authority, is not the same as having failed to complete a suitable and sufficient FRA. We feel, and our QC agrees with us, that this may mean Fire Enforcement Officers are acting outside their powers. We have attempted to work with a particular Fire and Rescue Authority to take this to the Secretary of State for a decision, but unfortunately without success.

5.5 It appears to us that some Fire and Rescue Authorities have set their own centralised standards which they believe should be met, rather than assessing fire safety on a case by case basis in line with the risk assessment approach in the RRFSO. When they find something that is outside their centralised standards, they work hard to force us to change the recommendation in our FRA. Again, we believe this may mean Fire Enforcement Officers are acting outside their powers.

5.6 Less well-supported organisations – particularly those who only work with one Fire and Rescue Authority – are likely to simply do as they are told by the Fire Enforcement Officer. However, we believe this is not in line with the expectations set out in the RRFSO. If Fire Enforcement Officers are unable to consider any solutions other than those in their Authorities’ centralised standards, we believe this has the unintended consequence of reinstating the old Fire Certificate regime with Fire Officers dictating what businesses should do, irrespective of how appropriate these solutions are for the business.

6 Any ‘knock-on effects’ arising from compliance with fire safety
legislation – for example, where action to meet fire safety regulations
leads to additional requirements to meet other sets of regulations.

6.1 There are two key challenges relating to fire safety at retirement housing
a) Interaction with the requirements to consult residents under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
b) Interaction with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, relating to disabled people.

a) Interaction with requirements to consult residents

6.2 Where our FRA identifies action points which will lead to us spending resident’s money (for example, over £250 per dwelling per year for leasehold properties) we are required to carry out formal resident consultation.

6.3 The legislation which creates the requirement to consult residents sets out a very detailed process which must be completed in full. Errors in completing consultation can lead to us having to carry out the consultation again or fund the work without recovering costs from residents. Leasehold residents also have the right to challenge the decisions we make at a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. The minimum time we can complete this type of consultation is three months, and it frequently takes significantly longer.

6.4 Fire Enforcement Officers often are unaware of or do not appear to understand the implications of the legal duty to consult. Once we have explained these requirements, they frequently appear to feel that the RRFSO should supersede our legal duty to consult. We therefore expend a significant amount of energy challenging unreasonable timescales in Notices of Deficiency, which has the potential to distract us from focussing our energies on implementing the findings of our FRAs.

b) Interaction with requirements for our disabled residents

6.5 We attempt to house people appropriately for their needs including needs related to fire safety, such as ability to evacuate if necessary. However, our residents’ needs can change during the course of their tenancy, which may be many years. We are unable to force people to leave their property on the basis of a change in their health as this is not legal grounds for eviction. We encourage resident’s to consider moving to more appropriate accommodation when we become aware this would be appropriate, but in the current financial climate a move is often simply not possible.

6.6 We attempt to work with Fire Enforcement Officers to help them to understand that our buildings are classed as independent living, and we cannot force residents to behave in particular ways. We also explain that, unlike care homes, residents can refuse our staff access to their homes under their tenancy agreement or lease. However several Fire Enforcement Officers have set unachievable requirements in Notices of Deficiencies.

6.7 We cannot introduce any arrangements that would breach their tenancy / lease, for example we cannot institute any evacuation strategy where our staff would be expected to enter resident’s homes and provide physical assistance to evacuate (as is common in care homes). The guidance ‘Fire Safety in Purpose Built Blocks of Flats’ says that a delayed progressive evacuation strategy, also known as a ‘Stay Safe’ approach or ‘Stay Put’ policy, is a legitimate evacuation strategy. However more than one Fire and Rescue Authority believe the ‘Stay Safe’ approach is never appropriate, and we have been told some consider them to be an attempt by ‘Responsible Persons’ to devolve responsibility for evacuation to the Fire Fighters.

6.8 We also face significant challenges with storing mobility scooters in our buildings. In one notable case, a Fire Enforcement Officer advised our staff that no scooters should be stored in any part of a building, including in residents’ homes. Mobility scooters are allowed on airplanes, but are treated as a high-risk hazard by the majority of Fire Enforcement Officers. We believe that, given the ageing population and the reduction in care home places, the challenges of storing mobility scooters in a way which is acceptable to Fire Enforcement Officers will only get worse.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
We are the national body that represents the interests of long leaseholders in England and Wales which we do via their Resident Associations, Resident Management Companies, Right to Manage Companies and similar groups many of who act collectively as the ‘responsible persons’ under the Fire Safety legislation while others employ the services of a managing agent operating in an unregulated environment.

We would ask that in your deliberations you give careful consideration to how these issues will impact upon blocks of flats and estates that are managed collectively and where they are governed by legislation in the leasehold sector as well as across Government.

Additional information about us can be found on our website.

Our comments on topics suggested are:-

• How and where you access information about fire safety issues, your
legal obligations, and how to comply with the law;

Our members seek advice us from us as an impartial organisation as often their own management company fails to communicate the reasons for certain actions or recommend costly, and disproportionate works to the common parts of their block.
Trades bodies such as ARMA provide good resources for their members sadly they only represent around 50% of managed blocks where as many are managed by volunteers who not our members and therefore unable to access our resources.

• What information you need, and how you would prefer to access
advice and guidance on fire safety matters;

We would like the information available to all RMC / RTM Directors directly from Companies House when they take on the responsibilities along with a a web-based discussion forum to share experiences as all blocks are different.

• Activity undertaken by fire and rescue authorities to support you with
business compliance;

There needs to be more recognition of volunteer RMC Directors by fire authorities not just managing agents and freeholders as well as an understanding of leases and issues of ownership / responsibility especially with regards fire doors to flats.

• The interaction your business has with fire and rescue authorities on
the business premises;

Our members are often not for profit companies / businesses but need to have the same recognition with the fire service as commercial companies

• Any ‘knock-on effects’ arising from compliance with fire safety
legislation – for example, where action to meet fire safety regulations
leads to additional requirements to meet other sets of regulations.

The Equalities Act 2010 requirements for ‘reasonable adjustments’ is causing much confusion for disabled flat -dwellers requiring improvements to the ‘common parts’ to facilitate access while impacting on the ‘means of escape’ of other residents in a block as well as complications with the lease on ownership / insurance issues.

Also gas safety legislation proposes different requirements on rented flats than those of owner occupier leaseholders.

We are interested in examples of good practice that is helpful to your
business in meeting its obligations, and suggestions for improving the way
things work.

A number of our members have shown how volunteers can provide a reasonable and proactive approach to fire safety in a block without the need for expensive consultants over prescribing fire safety measures in low risk blocks

We would also be interested to learn of issues encountered where third
parties encourage you to undertake unnecessary compliance activity;
for example, where regulation does not actually require a company to do
something, but they are led to believe it does.

A number of managing agents and professionals recommend the installation of fire fighting equipment in common areas of blocks of flats where no one is trained to use them or installation of emergency lighting to common areas where it may be unnecessary.

Another problem is front doors to flats owned by the leasehold flat owner and replaced with a ‘non fire doors’ and not the responsibility of those managing the building.

Regards

Bob Smytherman
For FPRA Ltd

*************************************************************************************
This response was sent on behalf of The Federation of Private Residents Associations Ltd.
A Non Profit Company limited by guarantee. Registered number 1992130
FPRA only advises member associations – we cannot and do not act for them.
Opinions and statements offered orally and in writing are given free of charge and in good faith and as such are offered without legal responsibility on the part either of the maker or of FPRA Ltd.
Main Office.
The Federation of Private Residents Associations Ltd,
P O Box 10271
EPPING
Essex CM16 9DB
Telephone Number; 0871 200 3324 (normal national rates apply)
email. info@fpra.org.uk.
web. www.fpra.org.uk.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Response on behalf of the CFOA West Midlands Region in response to the following matters raised in the consultation:
 How and where companies access information about fire safety issues, their legal obligations, and how to comply with the law;
 Activity undertaken by fire and rescue authorities to support business compliance;
 The interaction businesses have with fire and rescue authorities on the business premises;
 Any ‘knock-on effects’ arising from compliance with fire safety legislation – for example, where action to meet fire safety regulations leads to additional requirements to meet other sets of regulations.

Fire Authorities in the West Midlands region of CFOA undertake a number of proactive measures that fit into the headings above, to assist business; in particular SME’s. These measures include:
• The giving of general fire safety advice at seminars and educational / training events to promote the understanding of requirements (sometimes in partnership with e.g. Police, Trading Standards, Environmental Health etc);
• Providing fire safety advice and fire risk assessment templates on web-sites;
• The carrying out of seasonal campaigns and commercial hot strikes to educate business and inform them of risks specific to them or affecting similar businesses;
• Informing the responsible person where safety measures have been over-provided;
• Informing businesses (by letter) of forthcoming audits and inviting them to attend an education / awareness session to prepare the responsible person for the audit process and to promote compliance (35% attend these sessions);
• Developing an ‘educate and inform’ strategy for business;
• Using plain English in all communications with business;
• Engaging with Local Authority Regulatory Services Department (and with BRDO & Local Enterprise Partnership) to explore ways of reducing the regulatory burden on local business; and
• Being mindful of and using the Enforcement Concordat, Regulators Compliance Code, and the Enforcement Management Model (e.g. employing the most suitable and least expensive fire safety solution, not lingering in premises that provide reasonable safety, seeking minimum temporary safety measures to avoid issuing prohibition notices and to keep the business operating etc).

We also note the following to help inform the review.

The Fire Safety Order allows us to employ a generic set of principles to all premises; and is supported by a robust and graduated enforcement process and with enforcement models and codes to moderate enforcement activity.

In some areas, half the fires we attend relate to SME’s.

There is evidence to suggest that 40% of licensed premises do not have a fire risk assessment.

There is also evidence that some SME’s want a greater level of prescription to the inform them of what they need to do to comply with fire law.

Accreditation for fire risk assessors, specifiers, installers and the wider fire sector (including enforcers) would help the sector.

This review, by focussing on SME’s apparently assumes that risk is directly proportional to occupancy figures; this would be an incorrect assumption.

Serious fire safety failures (resulting in prohibition notices) can result in other regulators becoming involved in the premises and can thereby result in further enforcement action. This is in consequence of the information sharing and partnership working established between different authorities.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Whatever good reasons were declared for creating The RRO piece of legislation it appears that they have ended up with a document, which is written in such general terms that a lot of affected individuals are still scratching their heads struggling to figure out how to apply it in practice six years after the introduction.

Not surprising that fire risk assessors’, the responsible person’s and the enforcement authorities’ perception of the wording that a fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient in practice can differ as north and south poles. Two phrases used in the RRO: ”as far as is reasonably practicable” and ” where necessary” have done a nearly mortal blow to this piece of legislation. Add to that the wide spread incompetence.

As a result fire risk assessments and RRO enforcement are highly subjective.

In this situation rather than standing their ground, which may lead to a dispute, for a piece of mind the enforcement authorities often choose to be seen lenient. In fact, often they prefer to appease the responsible persons, so they can get good references from them rather than getting hassle for the same pay. This is even evident when one reads a number of contributions to this review, which are full of sugary praises to the enforcement authorities.

However, one can understand the pressure that the enforcement authorities are under. There is no reason for them to be seen as too keen in the situation where anyone can weasel out from The RRO with the reference to different perception of The RRO wording.

To consider the current effectiveness of The RRO enforcement one can simply compare fire statistics before RRO and after, when the enforcement should have made a positive effect. The enforcement is meant to prevent the accidents of fire. What we currently hear in the media are mostly the cases of court prosecutions AFTER the event of fire. It appears that one has to wait for an accident of fire to happen and then for the courts to make a judgement on the suitability of the fire risk assessment.

Also one can look at how many cases of the front door enforcements can be found. The entrance doors of non-domestic premises, such as shops and pubs, and of flats and HMO’s, which are facing common areas, are covered by the Fire Safety Order.

In this situation how many cases of the front door enforcements have you heard about?

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Currently we use the interent for the majority of our information regarding the fire safety legislation. The HSE website and others have some good guidance relating to the legisltation.
Information that is most useful is updates or changes to the regulations – would be good if they could be emailed to buisnesses to ensure that they are made aware. Key pieces of information that need to be readily available are figures, such as how many wardens a site should have depending on size etc, and how many extinguishers is adviced depending on the size of site etc.

In the last 12 months we have recieved visits from 3 different fire crews, the main reason for there visit to site was to familurise themselves with the site and update there information regarding our site. While on site there were a few points that the fire brigade noted that we could improve. But there was no real support given to business compliance with the legislation.

I have not come accross anything inparticular with the legislation that has led to additional requirements to meet other sets of regulations.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
As a company with 19 services caring for vulnerable adults. we value the working in partnership with our fire protection officer [text deleted]. working together helps us remain compliant with a company action plan. it also helps reinforce the responsibilities of the company and staff whom we talk to when carrying out audits. having link officers helps to reinforce our commitment to fire safety and gives continuity especially for a large organisation as ourselves. [text deleted] and I meet regularly to discuss our company action plans, visit our services, and receive regular feedback from local fire officers in the areas where we have homes and services. This also gives us a quick response when there are concerns raised by the brigade. We hope this service will continue in the future as the work we have completed together has had a beneficial impact on fire safety for the company and I hope the local brigade.

Comment by: John Berrisford (Staffordshire Fire & Rescue Service)

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:

Staffordshire Fire and Rescue (SFRS) would like to submit a response to the above review in relation to how it supports businesses through a new initiative that was launched in September 2009. Essentially this was to re-brand and re-launch our Commercial Fire Safety Department and to create a dedicated Business Support Team.

 Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service is committed to providing the businesses of Staffordshire with a high level of support that not only supports the response element of our service which of course in most cases will be taken for granted but we also offer a great deal by way of proactive support and partnership and collaborative working, using fresh ideas and initiatives that really do add value.

 We are all influenced by changes to legislation and working practices particularly regarding fire safety enforcement and the need to respond to those changes. It is with this in mind that motivated the creation and development of the Business Support Team within Staffordshire.

Staffordshire’s Business Support Team provides advice on a range of topics and is not typically limited to fire safety advice. Peter Dartford, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service Chief executive and Chief Fire Officer comments “We very much see that we have a role in promoting economic development and the local economy and supporting businesses is a key way in which we can do that”. Businesses obviously play a key role in generating and maintaining our economy and therefore it essential that they can grow and develop with confidence knowing that public services like the fire service are in deed supporting that growth and development.

Mr Dartford goes on to say: “The fire and rescue service has a statutory role as regulator and an enforcer and that’s perhaps the perception many of you may have of what we do, however we have a real opportunity to make a contribution far beyond those expectations and indeed the wider expectations of the fire and rescue service”.

As a consequence of that we have developed a number of ways that we can support local businesses, not only through the provision of training courses, not just on fire safety but on more general safety in the work place but more importantly we have created material that is available in a range of formats from hard copy, cd’s and more increasingly via the internet to provide information to businesses to help you to run your business and to keep it safe and your workforce safer still.

Since the creation of the Business Support Team in September 2009 the BST have delivered legislative fire protection activities within the business community, third sector and in partnership with other agencies and institutions such as, The Chamber of Commerce, The North Staffordshire Health and Safety Group, The Fire Protection Association, local companies [deleted text]. Some of our activities have been recognised at both national and regional levels for innovation and commitment. Further more we have developed specific services and support mechanisms by:

 • Providing advice and support that is tailored to businesses in order to assist in the prevention of fire and other emergencies.

• Providing support and information to businesses that have had a fire, both at the time of the fire and post fire.

• Providing training and instruction that incorporates training packages that have been developed top provide long term training solutions rather than a one time fix.

• Providing specific business support visits that allow the recipient to generate the agenda and lead the support activity with our assistance.

• Delivering campaigns that specifically focus on types of premises e.g. Farms, Fast Food Outlets, Hotels, Schools and Care Homes etc.

• Working with local authorities e.g. Local Enterprise Partnerships.

• Enhancing the fire safety knowledge of small businesses that have domestic dwellings in the same building i.e. flat above fast food take away.

 The team have also developed an extremely positive working relationship / partnership with the Fire Protection Association and as a result a number of Training and Information Packages are available to assist businesses to meet their obligation regarding training, information and instruction for staff.

 Should it be required Staffordshire Fire & Rescue would be pleased to offer a more detailed response…

In relation to coastal projects an area for consideration is trying to achieve a balance in relation the need for regulation to preserve and control impacts on the natural environment but do this in a way that does not apply a blanket position to all sections of the coast. This is essential to bring a sense of realism to enforcement activity that takes into account the actual circumstances prevailing on a section of coast so that overly draconian requirements are not imposed.

The second area in relation to dredging associated with ports needs to reflect the need for permissions to be provided in a quicker and more timely fashion as even local authority ports need to be run in a business orientated way that reflects the need to undertake dredging work more quickly at times to respond to specific circumstances or opportunities. A recent situation where 6 months was required to renew an existing permission for a disposal site was too long. Again this is perhaps a case for devoting energies into problematical areas and speeding up on more simple sitiuations.

Mark Seed
Director of Operational Services
Thanet District Council

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
I am secretary to our Village Hall Committee and Treasurer to [Deleted Text]. [Deleted Text] sent the PCC guidelines on our legal responsibilities for Fire Risk Assessment and Asbestos Management. The guidelines included reference to Government guidance on Fire Risk Assessment at www.communities.gov.uk/firesafetylaw/aboutguidelines/. The website was extremely helpful and helped me to carry out a risk assessement.

Focus area: Pubs

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
Pubs over the last few years have been under increasing pressure from all sides, these especially effect small community pubs as they rely on a potentially small clientele for the majority of their business.

The first and potentially main issue is the increased competition from the supermarkets with them offering products at far less than even the majority of pubs can buy them at themselves, this is a time when there is increasing pressure on household incomes from the double dip recession and ever decreasing disposable income.

Further pressures come from in this tough economic time the government have increased duty on all products by 2% over inflation year on year , this coupled with huge increases in energy prices as well as the majority of other necessities to run pubs has meant that most landlords have had to increase their prices just to stand still and in our experience the majority of them have gone backwards to such an extent that they are living on amounts way below the minimum wage.

The continual increase in duty is seriously hurting the industry and if it continues at this pace along with the ever changing demands in legislation to enable a premises to be locensedl will only serve to more pubs having to close because they are unviable.

Focus area: Pubs

Regulator concerned: Health and Safety Executive (HSE),Office of Fair Trading

Comment:
A number of local people have got together to buy our village pub at auction.
on the fall of the hammer we were expected to arrange insurance but were not allowed to have keys to the property until completion in 28 days. in contrast the vendor retained access during that period. as a result of the interest shown by the media in our venture we were invited to the property to be interviewed. the auctioneer arranged access. On entry we found that a large quantity of the fixtures & fittings had been removed in contravention of the particulars given in the auction catalogue. My first issue is that it cannot be right that the vendor has free access during the completion period. the keys should remain with the auctioneer until completion. I think we would have found it very difficult to get any redress once we had paid the money.

The items that were removed included 3 air conditioning units ( the pipes were cut and the gas released to the atmosphere), the gas boiler,a gas cut off valve for the cookers (both of which had been cut out of the gas line leaving the supply pipes uncapped and a number of wall lights ( where the live wires were left exposed. I contacted Environmental Health, Trading Standards, The Environment Agency & HSE. None would consider taking any action despite the fact that I had a letter from the vendors admitting to what they had done. The vendors were obliged to return some of the missing items in order to be able to complete. These complications increased our conveyancing costs quite substantially. The potential for serious injury or even death is obvious.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
We have been running a guest house for nine years and every three years we get a visit from the local fire safety office. The first visit helped to get us upto the required standard and we implement the suggestions made by the fire officer and felt his suggestions made sense and that our fire procedures and protection of guests were now more than adequate. The upgrades etc cost us over £6000, but the peace of mind was worth it.
3 years later the next officer visits and tells us he does not think our fire alarm system is adequate and suggested we install more detectors, emergency lighting and change some fire doors. It would have been cheaper to do this 3 years earlier when we had to install the new fire alarm system. New cabling etc was not so bad in cost terms but the redecoration required was expensive. Hopefully now were were up to standard!
But no! 3 years later another fire officer visits and insists we are not compliant with the legislation and requests another 3 detectors, a new illuminated sign and a more detailed fire risk assessment.
It seems each new fire officer has to make his mark by finding new deficiencies at each new visit. One can always get better and better protection in any building but there come a point were the risk / cost ratio becomes over bearing on small businesses. We all want a high level of protection for us and our guests but fire officers do not have to bear the costs of their recommendations. They need to give some thought to this risk /cost ratio. If Fire safety officer applied their same risk reduction goals to road users, we would all be driving at 15MPH max, all roads would have central reservations and pedestrians would have to wear 12 inch padding!
Fire officer need to put themselves in our shoes rather than get heavy handed.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: My comments are general and do not relate to a particular regulator or regulatory function

Comment:
I chair the Board of Trustees for our local Community centre. We are all volunteers. If we did not have the help of the Village Halls Association many other Boards like ours would be struggling. Fortunately I received training as a Health and Safety Adviser and a Risk Assessor which gave me the working knowledge that was needed to compile our first Fire Risk Assessment. If there was simple template for a Fire Risk Assessment that could be downloaded from the Internet that is available from either the local Fire service or ACRE/the Vilage Halls Association would be most helpful. No two buildings are the same and have different problems and usage. What would be very helpful would be if we could have free advice from the local Fire Prevention Service as to the viability of the Fire Risk Assessments that have been carried out. It’s knowing that we are as good as we can be with the precautions that we have taken with our buildings for our all Users would be extremely reassuring.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
I am the secretary of a small village hall which is run totally by volunteers and is a registered charity. Through liaison with CAN (Community Action Northumberland) I have attended 2 courses run by the local fire and rescue services. One was on responsibilities and regulation/requirements for organisations such as mine and one involving fire awareness and safety measures.
I have had two queries re situations occurring at our hall and o both occasions had adice given promptly. One of these occasions involving a visit fro a fire prevention officer.
I must say that help and advice has always been forthcoming as required. But I would appreciate more frequent courses if possible so that all members of hall committees such as mine can be made aware of requirements.
Also could some form of bulletin be put out on an as required basis to email subscribers re new legislation and recommendations as the main input we get is from the fire safety company which checks our equipment on a 6 monthly basis and of course are a financially motivated organisation.
A simple website entry in laymans terms with the email to suggest looking at it would be nice.
I am also the chair of an organisation representing 61 community buildings in West Northumberland and many member halls come to us for advice so there may well be a further submission fro my committee re this.
Overall I have been very pleased with the service provided.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
We are a charity providing care and support to disabled people in their own homes. We are still struggling with the huge variations in enforcement regimes across numerous different fire authorities in England. In particular Supported Living houses (for disabled people): some authorities are viewing these pretty much as domestic private houses, whilst others are insisting on rigorous inspection & enforcement regimes – followed by stringent requirements to carry out works that they insist are required under the RRO. For the second time in a month, in two different houses in two different areas, I’ve been threatened with enforcement action if I don’t carry out works in a house which I don’t own and in which the disabled residents actually have tenancies in their own right.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
Fire Authorities in my experience are committed to helping people and organisations that are interested in complying with the law, and generally do so (clearly there will be exceptions) with a view to minimising the burden on business. My Authority (i am the Prevention and Protection Manager for Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service and sit on the National CFOA Business Support Group) works hard to target those individuals and companies who are prepared to compromise on safety, and to apply a light touch to those who are low risk and are doing their best to comply. We recognise that there are tough times for all of us and our officers are guided to ensure that the risk is balanced in terms of the cost and wherever possible costs are minimised and spread over time. We have , in Lancashire, carried out a lot of ‘enforcement’ since the introduction of the regulations however that is due to our well defined targeting processes identifying (and reducing) risk, and the fact that we have in the area (Blackpool and Fylde Coast) a large risk profile in terms of hotels and guesthouses and HMO’s. We operate to the Principles of the Enforcement Concordat and the Regulators Compliance Code.

Focus area: Pubs

Regulator concerned: Planning ( Local Authority)

Comment:
[Deleted Text] | Removal of Condition 1 on Decision Notice Number [Deleted Text] relating to the variation of the permitted hours of use of external garden area – limiting use of the garden to between 1100hrs and 1800hrs | [Deleted Text]
As Directors of our company we are writing with reference to the above planning restriction. Since 1995 [Deleted Text], has had a planning restriction in place on it’s premises. Since taking on the business two years ago, we have re-established the premises as the hub of the community. Although licensed, the current planning restriction, restricts the use of our outside area past 6pm. We feel this is a duplication of other controls available and could be regarded as a unnecessary condition. The reason for the original planning was to ensure that the close amenities of the adjacent residential properties are not significantly harmed. This also falls very heavily within others laws under the Licensing Act 2003, namely the prevention of public nuisance and is specifically dealt with as part of day to day operations of any Premises License. There is also a further duty to prevent statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003. There are greater powers which have increased the responsibility and improved many operations within these boundaries. In my view the conditions should be controlled under the conditions of the Premises Licence and not a restriction on planning. The business is operated in a manor to prevent noise nuisance, with monitoring, communication, staff training and upgraded CCTV, complying with all four licencing objectives that we have to meet as a licenced business. It is proven that in warmer weather our trade and business dramatically declines therefor for the further growth and development of our community establishment it is important to be able to provide a safe external public area. We do not want [Deleted Text] to be another statistic of closing licenced premises due to the actions and restrictions of a county council rather than because of a failing business operation.

Focus area: Fire safety regulation

Regulator concerned: Fire safety (Fire Authority)

Comment:
The RR(FS)O has provided a number of challenges for business and for the enforcing authorities, not least that a responsible person with limited fire safety knowledge may be responsible for managing complex solutions and often, producing fire risk assessments. There has also been the cultural change within fire authorities whereby their officers are now auditing risk assessments, rather than inspecting premises. The general quality of risk assessments varies widely, some have clearly been prepared by experts whilst others have not. The volume of enforcemnet is therefore greatest in smaller enterprises where, perhaps, fire safety is less of a priority than other business issues, not least generating profit.
In Shropshire the FRA has tried to help SME by offering free workshops at which we outline the legal requirements on business and provide guidance on negotiating the risk assessment and audit process. Each business within a geographical area recieves an invitation and a range of dates to attend the 2 hour session, normally outside normal business hours. Businesses are also advised of the likely audit dates for their area. These are seen positively by business and are considered to be “best practice”. Shropshire FRS would be happy to share the detail of this initiative with relevant parties.