Whitmore Care UK Limited v Care Quality Commission [2026] UKFTT 1088 (HESC)

First-tier Tribunal Care Standards

The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 01088 (HESC)

Case No 2025-01718.EA

Heard remotely by video link

on 09 July 2026

Before

Tribunal Judge Daley

Specialist Member R Flynn

Specialist Member D Styles

Between:-

Between

Whitmore Care UK LimitedAppellant

-v-

Between

Care Quality CommissionRespondent

DECISION

Date 2026-07-23

The Application

[1]The Appellant company appealed (“the Appeal”) a decision by the Respondent (“the Decision”), set out in a written notice dated 11 November 2025, to cancel the Appellant’s registration as a service provider in respect of the regulated activity of personal care.

[2]The relevant powers of cancellation are set out in section 17(1)(e) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (“the Act”) and regulation 6(1)(c) of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 (“the 2009 Regulations”).

[3]The Decision was made on the basis that, at the time of the Decision, the Appellant was not carrying on the regulated activity of personal care and had not been for a continuous period of at least 12 months. In other words: it was considered dormant. Video Hearing

[4]The Hearing was carried out by CVP video link and all of the parties including the Tribunal attended remotely. Attendance

[5]Appellant was not represented neither was any one in attendance on the Appellant’s behalf. The Respondent (“The CQC”) was represented by Ms Amy Taylor, counsel, the CQC called one witness, Ms Hannah Cooper, who was present throughout the hearing. There were three other individuals from the CQC also attended the hearing, Ms M Ahmed- solicitor and Ms S Zaman paralegal and Mrs Claire England Solicitor. Preliminary Matters arising

[6]Mr K Okakpu, a director of the Appellant company who had made the application to appeal was contacted by Ms Zaman, solicitor for the CQC. The Tribunal heard from Ms Ahmed that Mr Okakpu had told her that he was travelling and that he would join the hearing when he arrived at his destination. No other information was provided by him.

[7]The Tribunal adjourned the hearing until 11am, to give the Appellant’s representative an opportunity to attend the hearing. At 11am there was no attendance by anyone on the Appellant’s behalf, neither had the Appellant contacted the tribunal.

[8]Ms Taylor made an application under Rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) Health, Education and Social Chamber Rules. She reminded the Tribunal that it had the power to proceed in the absence of the Appellant if it was satisfied that the party had been notified of the hearing, or that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the party of the hearing. She submitted that it was in the interest of justice for the hearing to proceed. She told the Tribunal that the parties had been notified of the hearing since 6 February 2026, Mr Okakpu the managing director had also attended case management hearings and had not raised any concerns about the hearing date.

[9]She told the Tribunal that the Appellant had not complied with all of the directions, the Appellant had also not asked for an adjournment. Further there were no changes in the circumstances which had given rise to the CQC’s Notice of Decision. She submitted that it was in the interest of justice for the appeal to be determined. The Decision of the Tribunal on the application under Rule 27

[10]The Tribunal reminded itself of Rule 27 and Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure rules. It noted that the Tribunal had briefly adjourned the hearing, to give the Appellant an opportunity to attend, The Tribunal was satisfied that the Appellant was aware of the hearing and that although Mr Okakpu had been contacted by a solicitor for the CQC, other than saying that he was travelling, no information had been provided concerning why he was not in attendance.

[11]Further no one on behalf of the Appellant had asked for the hearing to be postponed, or for the start of the hearing to be delayed. The Tribunal noted that no application for an adjournment had been made on behalf of the Appellant.

[12]The Tribunal considered Rule 2, and the requirement to deal with cases fairly and justly in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case. It reminded itself of the duty that the CQC had to safeguard members of the public.

[13]It was satisfied in all the circumstances that it was reasonable and proportionate for the hearing to proceed in the absence of representatives from the Appellant company. Background

[14]On 3 June 2024, the Appellant was registered to provide the Regulated Activity at the Location, Suite 2, 132 Lower Road, London SE16 2UG.

[15]On 23 October 2024 the Respondent sent the Appellant an email requesting confirmation of whether regulated activity had been carried out from the location since 4 June 2024. On 28 October 2024 the Appellant responded confirming that no regulated activity had been carried out from the location since 4 June 2024, further requests were sent by the Respondent on 6 January 2025, and on 4 March 2025.

[16]The Appellant responded by confirming that no regulated activity had been carried out since 4 June 2024.

[17]On 6 August 2025, the Respondent sent the Appellant an email requesting confirmation of the status of regulated activity since 4 June 2024. No response was received by the Respondent.

[18]On 6 October 2025, the Respondent served a Notice of Proposal (“NoP”) setting out its proposal to cancel the registration, on the grounds that the Appellant had not been carrying out regulated activities for a period of over 12 months.

[19]On 11 November 2025 the Respondent issued the Notice of Decision adopting the NoP. In the decision the Respondent noted that the Appellant had not made any representations following receipt of the NoP. The decision confirmed the Respondent’s intention to cancel the registration. The Appellant was informed of the right to appeal against the decision to the Care Standards Tribunal.

[20]On 1 December 2025 the Appellant appealed against the decision to the First-Tier Tribunal.

[21]In the Appeal the Appellant contends that the Respondent failed to consider key documents and information which was provided and cites that although the information was provided due to a transmission error the email was not received by the Respondent.

[22]The Respondent set out that although this error occurred, the Appellant has provided no evidence that regulated activity has been carried out since 4 June 2024. The Respondent set out that the Respondent continues to oppose the appeal and maintained that the decision to cancel the registration was and remains reasonable and proportionate. Legal Framework

[23]The Respondent was established in 2009 by the Act and is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The Respondent’s main objective, in performing its functions, is set out in section 3(1) of the Act as being to “protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of people who use health and social care services”. The Respondent is, pursuant to section 3(2) of the Act, to perform its functions for the general purpose of encouraging: the improvement of health and social care services; the provision of health and social care services in a way focused on the needs and experiences of people who use those services; and the efficient and effective use of resources.

[24]Matters to which the Respondent must have regard in performing its functions are set out in section 4 of the Act. They include the need to ensure action taken by the Respondent, in relation to health and social care services, is proportionate to the relevant risks and is targeted only where it is needed.

[25]The Act requires all providers of regulated activities in England to register with the Respondent and to comply with the requirements and fundamental standards set out in regulations made under the Act.

[26]Section 17(1)(e) provides that the Respondent may cancel the registration of a service provider on any ground specified in Regulations. 2.

[27]Regulation 6(1)(c) of the 2009 Regulations provides that the Respondent may cancel a registration if the service provider is not and has not been for a continuous period of 12 months, carrying on that regulated activity. Regulation 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, along with the Schedule 1 to the same Regulations, sets out a definition of the regulated activity of personal care. Evidence

[28]At the hearing the Tribunal heard from Ms Cooper who gave evidence under affirmation. She confirmed the accuracy of her witness statement. On behalf of the CQC, Ms Cooper was the Operations Manager at the CQC. In her witness statement she set out that her responsibilities were to manage a team of adult social care inspectors who carry out assessment and inspection activities and respond to operational risk. She set out the role of the CQC, which included the objectives of protecting and promoting the health, safety and welfare of people who use health and social care services.

[29]In paragraph 10 of her witness statement, she set out-:

“One of CQC’s key roles is to give the public clear, accessible and accurate information about the service providers currently providing regulated activities across the health and social care sector.”

In accordance with the CQC’s duty to maintain a register under Regulation 3, of the Care Quality Commission (Registration Regulations) 2009.

[30]Ms Cooper then set out how dormancy was established. She explained that where the service was a domiciliary care agency, it was normal for the provider to be dormant immediately following the first registration, and that the CQC would remain in contact with the service and remove the dormancy marker when the services begin carrying on the regulated activity. She set out that when a service begun the regulated activity, the service was asked to provide evidence that the regulated activity was being carried out to be assured that the service is no longer dormant.

[31]In paragraph 14 of her statement, she set out the Appellant had been dormant for over 12 months. Ms Cooper stated that “If a service provider has been dormant for over 12 months, operations support staff review the contact they have had with that provider to check that there has not been any evidence of regulated activity being carried on submitted to CQC. If there has not, an Operations Manager is notified and makes the decision on whether to begin the process for cancellation of registration. A service provider will have the opportunity to submit evidence that they are carrying on the regulated activity as part of their representations to a Notice of Proposal or an appeal of a Notice of Decision.”

[32]The Tribunal were referred to the Appellant’s registration history. Ms Cooper told the Tribunal that it was her role following the delegated decision-making framework to sign off the Notice of Decision.

[33]Ms Cooper was asked about the Appellant’s Ground for Appeal. She told the Tribunal that having considered the submission of the Appellant, there was no evidence provided that suggested that the Appellant was carrying out the Regulated Activity. Ms Cooper considered that in all the circumstances the decision to cancel the Appellant’s Registration as a registered provider of personal care remained fair necessary and proportionate.

[34]The Tribunal heard from Ms Taylor, who in her closing submissions reminded the Tribunal of the legislation and the duty on the CQC in relation to dormancy. In paragraph 28 of her Skeleton Argument, she set out that -The Respondent recognises that cancellation of registration would be a disappointment to the Appellant. However, the Respondent cannot make a special exception for the Appellant. Based on the Respondent’s overarching duties as a public body, it must deal with all registered providers equally. When considering the proportionality of its decision, the Respondent must weigh the potential inconvenience and disappointment to the Appellant on the one hand, and the need to maintain an up-to-date register of providers, ensure safety, and maintain a fair approach on the other. It is the Respondent’s case that those public interest factors weigh significantly in favour of the decision to cancel the Appellant’s registration.

[35]Although there was no one in attendance on behalf of Appellant, the Tribunal considered the written witness statement of Mr Okakpu made on behalf of the Appellant. In his witness statement dated 1.12.2025, he stated that “On 30/10/2025, we responded to Mr Daniel Credland of the CQC by email, regarding our trading status. The correspondence included documents referenced as EVI and EV2, which directly addressed the information requested by the Respondent. Following the submission, we subsequently discovered that the document had not been successfully sent due to a transmission issue, as evidenced in EV3. At no point did we receive notice from CQC that our reply had not been received, nor were we allowed to rectifythe issue before the Respondent issued the Notice of Decision to cancel our registration.”

[36]In his statement and in the appeal, he set out that this was procedurally unfair. The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons

[37]The Tribunal took account of all the evidence that was included in the hearing bundle and presented at the hearing. This includes the Appellant’s and Respondent’s evidence.

[38]We reminded ourselves that the Tribunal considers the circumstances as at the date of its decision and the onus is on the Respondent to satisfy the Tribunal that the relevant standard, namely the balance of probabilities was met.

[39]The Tribunal found the evidence of Ms Cooper to be credible, measured and fair. She acknowledged that the respondent made no findings of a lack of intention, readiness or capability against the Appellant.

[40]The Tribunal acknowledged that although the Appellant was not represented at the hearing. Mr Okakpu had provided a witness statement. The Tribunal considered the evidence that the Appellant had provided which included the documentary evidence.

[41]The Tribunal considered the evidence. It noted that although Mr Okakpu in his statement set out a clear intention to comply with the regulatory requirements, and although he produced as evidence information of having undertaken a risk assessment in respect of a potential client.

[42]There was no confirmation that care had been provided to the client, such as appointments, and care notes.

[43]The Tribunal found that the Appellant as a service provider was not and had not been for a continuous period of 12 months ending with the date of the decision to cancel registration (11 November 2025) and at the date of our decision, carrying on regulated activity.

[44]We found that the Appellant had not carried on regulated activity since 4 June 2024.

[45]Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the grounds for cancellation of the Registration were made out.

[46]The issue that followed from this finding was whether the Appellant’s registration should be cancelled.

[47]The Tribunal decided that it was reasonable, necessary and proportionate for the Appellant’s registration to be cancelled. Our reasons for doing so are set out below.

[48]The Tribunal accepted that where regulated activity is not being carried out, the Respondent is unable to satisfy itself whether it will be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulations and/or to the appropriate standards. This is because there is no activity of personal care that the service provider can carry out that will demonstrate its compliance with the relevant Regulations. The Tribunal accepted that there was a duty to ensure for the protection of the public that the register was up to date, and that it reflected references to those who were providing care only. It was misleading to have a registration which could be interpreted to belong to a care provider who had carried out care since June 2024, when this was not the case. There was no information from the Appellant that care had been undertaken, although the Tribunal accepted that the Appellant still maintained that there was an intention to do so in the future.

[49]The Tribunal acknowledged that cancelling the Appellant’s registration does not prevent the Appellant from re-applying in the future. The Appellant is at liberty to re-apply when it is in a position to carry out regulated activity.

[50]For the avoidance of any doubt, the Respondent made it clear that the decision was not made due to any concerns regarding any care provided by the Appellant.

[51]The Tribunal having considered all the circumstances of the case and the evidence before it finds that it was reasonable, necessary and proportionate for the Appellant’s registration to be cancelled. Decision: I. The appeal is dismissed. II. The decision of the Respondent dated 11 November 2025 to cancel the Appellant’s registration as a service provider in respect of the regulated activity of ‘Personal care’ at Whitmore Care UK, (East London) Suite 2,132 Lower Road, London SE16 2UG is confirmed. Judge Daley First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date Issued: 23 July 2026