Infinity and Beyond Care Ltd v Ofsted [2025] UKFTT 1494 (HESC)

Care StandardsThe Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008NCN: [2025] UKFTT 01494 (HESC)2025-01465.EYVenue Hearing held at the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand,on 25 th– 26 th November 2025
Before
Tribunal Judge L FordSpecialist Member Mr M TurnerSpecialist Member Mr G WrightInfinity and Beyond Care LtdAppellant-v-OfstedRespondentDECISION
Between
Infinity and Beyond Care LtdClaimantOfstedDefendantDate 2025-12-05

The Application

[1]The Appellant, Infinity and Beyond Care Ltd appeals against Ofsted’s decision, pursuant to Section 13 of the Care Standards Act 2000, to refuse the company’s application for registration as a Residential Family Centre.[2]The Tribunal made an order on 25th November 2025 under Rule 14(1)(a) and (b) of the 2008 Rules which prohibits the disclosure or publication of any documents or matter likely to lead members of the public to identify any children or adults referred to in evidence relating to assessments carried out by the Appellant in these proceedings. Attendance[3]Ms Samira Neil, Director and proposed Responsible Individual, Ms Jade Hall Chung, proposed Registered Manager, and Ms Michelle Chambers, Social Worker, attended on behalf of the Appellant. Mr T Leary of Counsel represented the Respondent. The Respondents witnesses were Ms A Burrows, Social Care Regulatory Inspector, and Ms Leanne Grant, Social Care Regulatory Inspector Manager. The tribunal acknowledged that the Appellant was, in effect, a litigant in person, and she was advised that if she needed breaks or additional time to consider any new oral, or other evidence, this would be facilitated. During the hearing the Appellant was able to effectively deliver the questions that she had prepared in advance and was given over an hour to finalise her closing submissions. The panel explained the procedure and answered any questions the Appellant had in relation to the process. We noted that the Respondent’s Counsel examined the Appellant’s witnesses sensitively and gave them time to answer his questions fully, repeating or reframing them if necessary. We were satisfied that Ms Neil and Ms Hall Chung were able to understand, and take a full part, in the hearing. Late

Evidence

[4]The Appellant had previously been granted permission to submit late evidence by order of Judge Khan of the 12th of November 2025 in the form of a bundle of certificates and correspondence which was subsequently attached to a witness statement from Ms S Neil dated 14th November 2025.[5]On the 18th of November 2025 the Appellant submitted an application to lodge late evidence in the form of a letter to Judge Khan containing criticisms of the Respondents, with an exhibit which consisted of a screenshot from a blog website posted on the 16th of March 2021, and on this basis, was suggesting that Ms Grant’s evidence be excluded. In their oral representations in support of the application they stated the blogs originate from incidents in 2018 and they had found them over six weeks before the hearing. The letter to Judge Khan contained allegations of bias and incompetence on the part of Ms Grant on the basis of the information in the blog.[6]After considering the application and written representations from the Respondent we refused permission for this late evidence to be admitted. Firstly, there was no reasonable explanation for providing the evidence less than a week before the final hearing, when we had been told that the Appellant knew of this information six weeks before. Further, the evidence consisted of a screenshot of selective comments taken from a blog written by an individual who made unsubstantiated complaints against Ms Grant in relation to matters in 2018. We have no doubt that the Internet contains many unsubstantiated complaints against social workers from those who are aggrieved by their decisions. We also note that Ms Grant remains a registered social worker with Social Work England and there are no adverse findings on Ms Grant’s registration. There was no merit to the application, and, having regard to the overriding objective, the application was dismissed.[7]There was no opposition to the Appellant submitting their skeleton argument late and it was duly admitted.[8]On the second day of the hearing the Appellant submitted their updated skeleton argument, initial opening statement entitled “full preliminary statement”, which they had read out at the commencement of the hearing on the first day, and copies of the documents “Standard 12 - Fitness to Provide or Manage the Administration of a Residential Family Centre” and an excerpt from guidance in relation to the staffing of children’s homes. There was no opposition to them being admitted. Background[9]The Appellant company was incorporated on the 13th of March 2023 with its sole director and owner being Ms Samira Neil. The proposed registered manager is Ms Jade Hall Chung. The Appellant applied for registration as a Residential Family Centre and an initial inspection visit was arranged for October 2024. This was postponed until December 2024 as a result of planning issues and a change of the property to be used as the family centre.[10]On 26th February 2025 the Respondent gave the Appellant notice of proposal to refuse the application. Following consideration of the Appellant’s written representations a final notice of decision to refuse registration was issued on 29th April 2025.[11]On 12th May 2025 the Appellant lodged notice of appeal. The appeal was listed for final hearing for 4 days commencing on 25th November 2025. Legal Framework[12]The legal framework for the registration and regulation of Residential Family Centres is found in Part 2 of the Act. Section 12 provides for applications to be made for registration and section 13(2) provides that: “If the registration authority is satisfied that–(a) the requirements of regulations under section 22; and(b) the requirements of any other enactment which appears to the registration authority to be relevant, are being and will continue to be complied with (so far as applicable) in relation to the establishment or agency, it shall grant the application; otherwise, it shall refuse it.[13]The “requirements of regulations under section 22” include, for these purposes, the Regulations. Unless Ofsted, or, on appeal, the tribunal, is “satisfied” that the requirements of the Regulations “are being and will continue to be complied with” by the Appellant, it “shall” refuse registration.[14]Further, section 23(4) of the Act requires Ofsted (and the tribunal) to “take into account” the National Minimum Standards “in the making of any decision” under Part 2 – which includes registration decisions. Accordingly:a. the Regulations fall to be interpreted in accordance with the National Minimum Standards; andb. unless the tribunal can be satisfied that the Appellant will comply with the National Minimum Standards, registration should be refused.[15]The onus of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate to Ofsted, and, on appeal, to the tribunal, that it and its proposed responsible person and manager are fit persons of integrity and good character, with all the requisite qualifications, skills and experience to operate or manage a Residential Family Centre. This basic principle was reaffirmed in Jones v Commission for Social Care Inspection [2005] 1 WLR 2461.[16]The relevant requirements under the Regulations are at regulations 5, 7, 8, and 24:
“5. (1) A person shall not carry on a residential family centre unless he is fit to do so. . . . (3) The requirements are that – (a) he is of integrity and good character . . .” “7. (1) A person shall not manage a residential family centre unless he is fit to do so. (2) A person is not fit to manage a residential family centre unless – (a) he is of integrity and good character; (b) having regard to the size of the residential family centre, the statement of purpose, and the number and needs of the residents – (i) he has the qualifications, skills and experience necessary to manage the centre . . .” “8. (1) The registered provider and the registered manager shall, having regard to the size of the residential family centre, the statement of purpose, and the number and needs of the residents, carry on or manage the centre (as the case may be) with sufficient care, competence and skill.” “24. (1) The registered provider shall carry on the residential family centre in such manner as is likely to ensure that it will be financially viable for the purpose of achieving the aims and objectives set out in the statement of purpose”
[17]National Minimum Standard 12.2 further provides that:
“The registered manager (or registered person, where the registered person is an individual and there is no registered manager) should have: a. a Level 5 Diploma in Leadership for Health and Social Care and Children and Young People’s Services, or other recognised social work qualifications; b. a qualification in management at least at level 4; c. at least two years’ experience relevant to residential care within the last five years; and d. at least one year’s experience supervising and managing professional staff.”
Evidence[18]We carefully considered all the written evidence submitted to the Tribunal in advance and during the hearing, and the oral evidence provided at the hearing even if we do not specifically mention it. We had read the bundle and the late evidence that was admitted during the course of the hearing, and heard the recorded telephone conversations with Ms C Adejayan submitted by the Appellant.[19]We heard oral evidence from Ms Samira Neil, Director and proposed Responsible Individual, who confirmed the contents of her written evidence. She confirmed the nature of the family assessments that had been undertaken by the company which included 24-hour observations and detailed recording of evidence. She confirmed that Ms Chambers, independent social worker, would visit weekly but was available by telephone. Ms Neil confirmed that she was responsible for the registration process.[20]Ms Neil was asked about the previous experience she had outlined in her statement including that relating to her time employed by Croydon local authority where she provides business support. It was clear that although she sat on one of Croydon’s case planning panels, she was largely responsible for the allocation of financial support in line with the relevant regulations. She was not directly involved in the assessment of families in terms of risk or in relation to child protection issues. In answer to questions regarding the use of confidential information to support her appeal Ms Neil indicated that she had permission from the families to provide that information and the ‘thank you’ cards that were included in support of her application. She confirmed that she had no evidence of their consent to use the information in the way she had, but was sure she could obtain it.[21]She referred to her prior voluntary work at family centres, described as shadowing of a colleague one evening per week, in East London and Croydon, although could not remember the names of the places she worked. She had no explanation why this information was not included in her witness statements and if this was significant experience over a period of time it was inconceivable that she would not remember where it had occurred.[22]Ms Neil indicated that she had put on hold the final module of the level 5 qualification she had started and this would not be completed until at least May 2026. She was reluctant to accept that this would preclude her from being approved, and although her answers to questions were generally evasive, she eventually accepted that she had acted unlawfully by carrying out family assessments while unregistered. She accepted that it was her responsibility as the proposed Registered Person to secure compliance with the regulations. Despite this, we note in her closing submissions that she seemed to argue that, as they had provided what she considered to be high quality assessments, the fact of operating unlawfully could be overlooked. This showed a continuing lack of insight which underlies issues of competence and integrity.[23]Ms Neil was referred to the email sent by her company to the London Borough of Merton on 20th January 2025 which stated in terms ”we are an established registered Residential Assessment Family Centre”. Although she accepted this was false information given to secure work, she stated this was provided by someone she had commissioned to assist the business and was sent without her authority. Whether or not this was the case, she failed to accept that the ultimate responsibility was hers.[24]In her evidence Ms Neil repeatedly sought to excuse her unlawful placements by suggesting that some local authority staff knew that she was not registered. Again, even if any evidence had been produced to support that contention, this did not absolve her of responsibility.[25]Ms Neil was asked about the reference provided by Ms C Adejayan and indicated she did not know that Ms Adejayan was not in a position to give the reference on behalf of Lambeth. She stated that she did not think there was a need to check.[26]Ms Neil was questioned in relation to the financial viability of the company. She accepted that the account showed only £3000 cash in the bank and explained the reasons for changes in set up costs over time.[27]Ms Neil was asked about the possible use of a third bedroom which they had previously decided to abandon following advice from the Respondent. She was referred to the regulations and the need to be clear with Ofsted as to the number of residents as this was relevant to the registration process. She indicated that this was only a possibility and therefore did not feel she needed to inform them. She was further questioned about the Company’s stated charges and explained the reasons why the charges that had been invoiced were greater than that originally stated as result of extra supervision that was required for a particular family. Ms Neil was asked about her allegation made towards Ms Grant as having an “unjustified focus on regulatory compliance.” and refused to accept in cross examination that this was an alarming statement for someone to make in their capacity as the proposed responsible individual.[28]Ms J Hall-Chung gave evidence as to her qualifications and experience, explaining that she had completed 4 out of 15 modules. She accepted that the level 5 qualification she had started would not be completed until 31 March 2026 and therefore she could not meet the basic requirements to be a Registered Manager under 12.2 of the National Minimum Standard on that basis alone.[29]In relation to the requirement for at least two years’ experience relevant to residential care within the last five years, Ms Hall Chung argued that that the regulations had changed in May 2025 and that the previous regulations suggested that she only needed to work towards these requirements. On the second day of the hearing, it was clarified there had been no change to the Regulations since 6th March 2023 and there was no evidence to support the argument that there was any exception as to how the regulations must be applied. Ms Hall Chung would not accept that her experience working for Infinity and Beyond Care Limited as an unregistered family centre could not count as relevant experience.[30]The historical information from the London Borough of Enfield dated 29th July 2024 exhibited to the statement of Ms Grant were put to Ms Hall Chung. She provided lengthy answers in relation to the various concerns raised of previous, alleged, inappropriate conduct and her previous ‘spent’ conviction. Although there was insufficient material before the tribunal to make any specific findings on these allegations, the Tribunal observed that, in relation to all of the allegations, including her criminal conviction, she appeared to accept no personal responsibility for any element of the allegations.[31]Ms Hall Chung provided examples of how she believed that the social workers and other staff from the instructing local authorities knew that they were providing assessments without being registered. She failed to acknowledge that her response should have been to refuse referrals. When asked about the manner in which a reference was obtained from Ms Adejayan she acknowledged that “it was a big mistake” and when asked why she accepted the placements acknowledged that she was ”desperate to keep the business going”. Whilst we accept it may have been generally reasonable for Ms Hall Chung to assist in drafting the reference, in relation to the last paragraph purporting to express a view on the part of the local authority, she should have been aware that this was clearly not something Ms Adejayan was able to state.[32]When asked about her attitude towards compliance she acknowledged that she had to comply with the legal requirements. However, she appeared to argue that as the quality of their assessments were good, some exception could be made.[33]Although we appreciate that Ms Hall Chung, in part of her evidence, gave a sincere account of her work with families, and eventually acknowledged she could not satisfy the criteria to be Registered Manager, the evidence suggested that she did not have sufficient insight into the regulatory framework to be approved as a registered manager. It was of concern that Ms Neil did not, until she gave evidence, appreciate that Ms Hall Chung did not meet the requirements of registration.[34]Ms Hall Chung has an outstanding appeal against the decision not to approve her as Registered Manager that is due to be heard in February 2026. Both Mr Neil and Ms Hall Chung had previously resisted the suggestion to join the two appeals and have them heard together. It appears neither appreciated that the present appeal could not succeed if Ms Neil had not proposed any alternative manager.[35]We heard oral evidence from Ms Michelle Chambers, independent social worker. Although she confirmed she had an understanding of the regulatory framework in her evidence she referred to the “Regulation 25 assessments” that she carried out. Although she confirmed specifically that the requirements of section 25 (2) did not apply to her she did not appear to understand that this would render the assessments she had carried out non-compliant for the purpose of that regulation.[36]She also appeared to have made an assumption that the regulations which applied to supported accommodation (which may allow a placement before formal approval is given) would be the same in relation to a residential family centre. She eventually accepted, with the benefit of hindsight, that she should not have carried out assessments for an unregistered family centre. Her evidence displayed a concerning lack of knowledge of the relevant regulations and an initial inability to accept that they had to be followed.[37]We heard oral evidence from Ms Burrows, Social Care Regulatory Inspector, who confirmed the contents of her statement. She was questioned by the Appellant as to her initial mistaken application of the Children’s Home Regulations in relation to her initial visit. She went on to explain, repeatedly, that the information she collected was reviewed by her manager who ultimately collated all of the evidence and made the final decision, applying the correct regulations. Although the Appellant suggested that failure to declare this mistake at the time, and during the course of the appeal, was significant, it was clear from the evidence from Ms Burrows, and subsequently from the supporting evidence of Ms Grant, that this was an internal error that in no way affected the Respondent’s decision making, and resulted in no prejudice to the Appellant.[38]Ms Burrows was an impressive professional witness who gave clear and consistent evidence which was largely unchallenged.[39]We heard oral evidence from Ms Grant who confirmed the contents of her statements of evidence. The Appellant questioned her in relation to the decision-making process and she confirmed that she was responsible for the Respondent’s decision making which was based on the correct framework. She was asked about the Lambeth reference and described the process by which such references would need to be checked if there were any concerns. She confirmed her understanding and interpretation of the regulations and confirmed that Ms Neil and Ms Hall Chung could still not be regarded as being sufficiently qualified under the framework. She confirmed her view that any experience Ms Hall Chung acquired in managing an unregistered family centre could not be taken into account.[40]Ms Grant was an impressive and reliable professional witness who gave her evidence clearly and referred to specific reasons for making her decisions. We note that the Appellant, in their original opening statement, made accusations of bias and incompetence against Ms Grant. Although they did not appear to pursue those allegations during the course of the hearing, we found no evidence of bias or incompetence on the part of Ms Grant who gave a wholly professional assessment of the evidence upon which she had relied to make a professional, evidence-based decision, not to register the Appellant.

The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons

[41]We address the Respondent’s main grounds for refusal of registration and deal with our findings in relation to the 16 allegations contained in the Scott Schedule under those headings A. Lack of integrity in operating an unregistered residential family centre[42]It was clear from the written and oral evidence that the Appellant operated as an unregistered residential family centre between April 2024 to at least September 2025. This was accepted by both of the Appellant’s witnesses in their evidence and there are numerous references in the bundle to such assessments. For example, the email from Ms Hall Chung to Ofsted of 3rd February 2025 describes her experiences leading the assessment process and supporting families, and the witness statement of Ms Chambers confirming that a family was placed there for over a year.[43]Both of the Appellant’s witnesses continued to excuse the unlawful admission of families for assessment on the basis that they provided a good supportive service to families and repeated an entirely fanciful and misguided interpretation of the regulations which was not supported by any logical argument. Their initial attempts to suggest that the assessments were actually carried out by Ms Chambers showed a lack of insight as to the seriousness of the situation and the possible commission of a criminal offence.[44]Although it was said in evidence by Ms Neil that Mr Russell Chenery-Preen of Ofsted suggested that they could provide certain kinds of support to families provided that formal assessment was not carried out directly, no evidence is provided to support that assertion and we find that it is inherently unlikely that an employee of Ofsted would provide such advice.[45]Ms Neil failed to accept responsibility for carrying out assessments, and, even though she denied that she was aware of an email sent to Merton Council on 20 January 2025 describing the Appellant as “an established registered residential family assessment centre”, it was clearly her responsibility to ensure that accurate information was being provided.[46]The burden is on the Appellant to satisfy the tribunal, on a balance of probabilities, that both Mr Neil and this Ms Hall Chung are persons of good character and unless so satisfied we must refuse registration. We accept that integrity does not necessarily involve dishonesty although there is no doubt that both Ms Neil and Ms Hall Chung have, at the very least, been reckless as to the truth of the statements made and disregarded the obvious fact that they were running a family centre unlawfully. It is clear from their evidence that they knew, and accepted in evidence, that they were acting unlawfully and made repeated attempts, by misinterpreting the regulations and emphasising the quality of their service, to try and justify something that cannot be justified. They clearly provided a misleading impression to third parties that they were registered and were able to provide assessments. Even if they are correct in stating that some of the staff from local authorities were aware of that fact, that does not relieve them of their responsibility to ensure that they comply with the regulations.[47]We find, for the reasons stated, that allegations 1-3 in the Scott’s Schedule are made out.[48]In relation to allegations 6 and 7 we find that these are made out on the basis that Ms Neil submitted a misleading reference to Lambeth Council. Although Ms Neil suggested she was not directly involved in the obtaining of that reference she bears responsibility with Ms Hall Chung. B. Lack of required experience, qualifications and understanding[49]It was clear from Ms Neil’s and Ms Hall Chung’s evidence that, although they reluctantly accepted that they did not have the necessary experience or qualifications in order to be registered they then appeared to assume that there was some discretion that could be exercised by the Respondent and the tribunal on the basis of other qualifications and experience. This indicated a fundamental misunderstanding of the registration requirements.[50]In relation to Ms Neil as the proposed Responsible Individual she was not able to establish that she had the necessary competence, qualifications or experience. She operated an unregistered residential family centre. Ms Neil referred to 7 years’ experience working in children services within the council as a service leader in business support and referred to working towards a level 5 qualification. It was clear from her evidence that even on the panel that she sat on, she was largely giving advice in relation to issues of financial support and nothing in her stated experience would have provided her with the necessary skills and experience to run a residential family centre for vulnerable children and parents. Nothing in Ms Neil’s oral evidence or written evidence demonstrated that she had the necessary experience and skills. In relation to Ms Hall Chung as the proposed manager the National Minimum standards at 12.2 set out the very clear requirements which Ms Hall Chung largely accepted that she had not achieved. Although we received additional evidence in the fourth statement of Miss Neil in relation to various courses and qualifications that Ms Hall Chung had either completed, or enrolled on, none of these satisfied the requirements of 12.2. Ms Hall Chung has a level 5 diploma in leadership and management for adult care. Although she indicated in her evidence that she was given misleading advice when she embarked upon this course, that does not assist her. The level 5 diploma in leadership and management residential childcare course that she has recently enrolled upon will not be completed until 30 March 2026. Further, Ms Hall Chung does not have two years’ experience of relevant residential care within the last five years. We do not accept that the time she spent operating as a manager in an unregistered family centre can count towards that. Her experience in a nursery setting was not equivalent to residential care.[51]For these reasons we find that allegations 8-11 inclusive in the Scott’s schedule are made out. C. - Lack of financial viability - issue 12 in the Scott schedule[52]It is incumbent upon the Appellant to establish that it is financially viable. Although we note in Ms Neil’s evidence that she specifically refers to the prospect of insolvency should there be any delay in the registration we accept the proposition that it is likely, should registration be granted, that there would be profitable opportunities from various local authorities for assessments which are in high demand. Although we accept that there are some unanswered questions in relation to financial viability, we do not find that registration could be refused on the ground of financial viability. D. - Additional indicators of a lack of integrity/unfitness[53]In relation to issue 13 in the schedule, a lack of transparency and integrity regarding set up costs - referred to as £50,000 and subsequently £100,000 - we do not find that this was proven. We accept that the set-up costs may well have changed during the registration process and inaccurate projections do not, in themselves, indicate a lack of integrity[54]In relation to issue 14 - the additional fees that were charged over and above those stated as £4300 per week in the original statement of purpose – we find these were adequately explained on the basis of additional costs associated with higher degrees of supervision and support provided for particular families.[55]In relation to issue 15 we do find that the proposed Responsible Individual and proposed Registered Manager do not understand the responsibilities and duties of carrying on a managing residential family centre including an inability to understand the underpinning legislation and the National Minimum Standards and we refer to our findings above in relation to those issues.[56]In relation to issue 16 we do find, for the reasons stated above, that there was an overall inability to work with Ofsted as the regulator in an open and transparent manner. In particular, in relation to the information provided as to the operation of the family centre prior to registration. In relation to the specific allegation regarding submitting confidential and sensitive information as part of the appeal process, we do not find that specific allegation is made out. Although ill-advised we accept that the Appellant may not have realised the information would not remain confidential and accept that the Appellant had, or could obtain, permission from those individuals who provided ‘thank you‘ cards to use in this appeal.[57]For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed. Order:[1]The appeal is dismissed.[2]The Respondent’s decision not to register Infinity and Beyond Care Ltd as a Residential Family Centre is confirmed. Tribunal Judge L Ford 05 December 2025