Luminery Care Limited & Anor v Ofsted [2026] UKFTT 00786 (HESC)

First-tier Tribunal Care Standards

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

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00786 (HESC)

2025-01625.EY

Heard at Bradford Tribunal Centre

On 21, 22, 23 and 24 April 2026

Panel Deliberations on 1 May 2026

Before

Tribunal Judge S Goodrich

Specialist Member Ms L Bromley

Specialist Member Ms J Heggie

Between

Luminery Care LimitedAppellant

Khurum AhmedAppellant

Between

OfstedRespondent

DECISION

Date 2026-05-26

Representation

[1]This hearing concerns appeals against two decisions made by the Respondent on 21 August 2025:(i) to refuse the application of Luminery Care Limited for registration as a provider of a supported accommodation undertaking:

(ii) to refuse the application of Mr Khurum Ahmed for registration as the Registered Service Manager (RSM) of the supported accommodation undertaking.

[2]Both appeals were consolidated under the appeal reference for Luminery Care Limited. Mrs Mukhtar is the sole director of the Appellant company. For ease of reference when we refer to “the Appellant” or “the provider” we mean the company/Mrs Mukthar. We will generally refer to Mr Ahmed by name or as “the proposed registered service manager”/the proposed RSM.

The Parties

[3]Mrs Tanya Mukhtar and Mr Khurum Ahmed are husband and wife. Mrs Mukhtar will be the nominated individual (NI) if the company application for registration as the provider of a supported accommodation undertaking (SAU) at 3 Moor Heights, Claremount Road, Halifax is granted. Mr Ahmed applied to be registered by the Respondent as the registered service manager (RSM) of the SAU.

[4]The Respondent is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) and is the regulatory authority responsible for the registration and regulation of supported accommodation under the Care Standards Act 2000 (the Act”) and secondary legislation made thereunder. This includes, (but is not limited to) the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 (hereafter “the Regulations”).

Restricted Reporting Order

[5]Neither party applied for a restricted reporting order under Rule 14(1) (a) and (b) of the 2008 Rules and we do not consider that such an order is necessary.

Reasonable Adjustments

[6]Neither party applied for reasonable adjustments.

The Broad Chronology regarding the decisions under appeal

[7]This appears to be as follows: i. On 9 March 2024 the Appellant applied for registration as a supported accommodation provider in respect of premises at 3 Moor Heights, Claremount Road, Halifax. The application sought registration in respect of Category 3 supported accommodation (i.e. shared accommodation, non ring-fenced). Mr Ahmed’s application to be registered as the Registered Service Manager (RSM) was submitted the same day. ii. On 9 April 2025, Mrs Richardson, a social care regulatory inspector (SCRI)employed by Ofsted, carried out a visit to the premises and conducted interviews with Mrs Mukhtar, the proposed NI, and Mr Ahmed, the proposed RSM, as part of the second stage of the registration process. iii. Following consideration of the information provided, the Respondent identified a number of concerns relating to the proposed NI and RSM. These included a lack of understanding of the relevant legislative and regulatory framework, deficiencies in safeguarding knowledge, and concerns regarding the understanding of both Mrs Mukhtar and Mr Ahmed regarding the appropriate scope of supported accommodation, including the needs of children who may properly be accommodated within such provision. iv. The Respondent was not satisfied that the Appellant had demonstrated the ability to comply with the requirements of the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 (“the Regulations”) and, accordingly, issued a Notice of Proposal dated 3 June 2025 to refuse the Appellant’s application for provider registration, and to refuse the registration of Mr Ahmed as RSM. Under the statutory provisions the applicants had 28 days to provide representations. v. On 16 June 2025 the Appellant and Mr Ahmed each submitted written representations in response to the NOPs. Further representations (headed “Final clarification for Panel Consideration”) were submitted on 7 July 2025 by Mr Ahmed. vi. Following consideration of the representations, the Respondent undertook a second interview on 6 August 2025 in order to assess whether the concerns previously identified had been addressed. vii. Having considered the representations and the information obtained at the second interview on 6 August 2025 the Respondent remained unsatisfied that the Appellant and the proposed RSM were able to meet the requirements of the Regulations. viii. On 21 August 2025 separate notices of decision (NODs) were issued by which each application was refused. ix. On 16 September 2025 each Appellant lodged an appeal. The grounds provided under section H of the appeal application form are lengthy. The skeleton argument drafted and lodged by the Appellant’s solicitor dated 14 April 2026 was in line with those grounds. It is sufficient at this stage to set out the broad headings provided by Mr Lothian-Field in the new skeleton argument that, having been instructed very recently, he provided on the first day of the hearing:a. Procedural unfairness;

b. Failure to have regard to relevant considerations;

c. Apparent bias;

d. Inconsistency and/or or irrationality; and

e. Proportionality and/or a failure to consider less intrusive alternatives. x. The Respondent maintains that the decisions to refuse registration were in accordance with the law, justified, necessary, and proportionate, having regard to the evidence obtained during the registration process, and the requirements of the statutory and regulatory framework. xi. On 16 January 2026, the Respondent received further material from the Appellant, which was considered at a further case review by Ofsted. The Respondent was not satisfied that the concerns previously identified had been adequately addressed but it offered a third interview. xii. The Appellant was unhappy with the proposed date for the third interview and also proposed conditions in relation to the conduct of that interview which were not acceptable to Ofsted. Alternative dates were offered by the Respondent. In the event the Appellant declined to participate in the proffered further interview, referring to concerns as to the fairness and reliability of the process.

The Decisions under Appeal

[8]The notice of decisions (NoDs) each dated 21 August 2025 are a matter of record and we need not relate their contents in full. By way of overall summary, the decisions to refuse the applications were made because the Respondent considered that each applicant had not demonstrated that they are able to meet/comply with the requirements for registration under the Regulations. Amongst other matters, Ofsted was not satisfied that the proposed provider and the proposed RSM fully understood the category of supported accommodation that the provider has applied to register. As to the updated documents and policies, these still did not meet the requirements of the Regulations or reflect practices appropriate for supported accommodation. Having the right information in key documents is imperative for staff to help keep children safe. It was unclear if practice would be appropriate for the age and needs of children living in supported accommodation.

The Legal Framework

[9]The powers of the Respondent to grant or refuse the registrationof a service provider are set out in section 13 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the Act). This provides:

“13 Grant or refusal of registration. (1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply where an application under section 12 has been made with respect to an establishment or agency in accordance with the provisions of this Part. (2) 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. ….”

The Act enabled the making of a number of regulations under section 22. Those which are key in this appeal are: The Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 The main requirements of the Regulations relevant in this appeal are set out below. The overall context of the Regulations is always important. For ease of reference, we have put the requirements in issue in this appeal in bold italics. Fitness of registered provider 11. —(1) An individual may only carry on a supported accommodation undertaking if the individual satisfies the requirements in paragraph (5). …. (5) The requirements are that— (a) the individual or partner is of integrity and good character; (b) the individual or partner has the capacity, appropriate experience and skillsto carry on a supported accommodation undertakinghaving regard to— (i) the number of premises used as supported accommodation by the undertaking concerned; (ii) the number of children accommodated in the premises used as supported accommodation by the undertaking concerned; (iii) the geographical scope of the premises used as supported accommodation by the undertaking concerned; (iv) the statement of purpose of the undertaking concerned; (v) the category or categories of supported accommodation provided by the undertaking concerned; …….. 7) A nominated individual must— (a) be a director of the organisation carrying on the supported accommodation undertaking in respect of which they are the nominated individual; (b) satisfy the requirements in paragraph (5)(a) to (d); (c) have the capacity, appropriate experience and skills to represent the organisation in its dealings with the CIECSS, having regard to the category or categories of supported accommodation provided by the supported accommodation undertaking in respect of which they are the nominated individual; (d) undertake, from time to time, such training as is appropriate to ensure that they have the experience and skills necessary to represent the supported accommodation undertaking in its dealings with the CIECSS. Fitness of registered service manager (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, The Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 Fitness of registered provider (a) the individual or partner is of integrity and good character; (b) the individual or partner has the capacity, appropriate experience and skillsto carry on a supported accommodation undertakinghaving regard to— (i) the number of premises used as supported accommodation by the undertaking concerned; (ii) the number of children accommodated in the premises used as supported accommodation by the undertaking concerned; (iii) the geographical scope of the premises used as supported accommodation by the undertaking concerned; (iv) the statement of purpose of the undertaking concerned; (v) the category or categories of supported accommodation provided by the undertaking concerned; (a) be a director of the organisation carrying on the supported accommodation undertaking in respect of which they are the nominated individual; (b) satisfy the requirements in paragraph (5)(a) to (d); (c) have the capacity, appropriate experience and skills to represent the organisation in its dealings with the CIECSS, having regard to the category or categories of supported accommodation provided by the supported accommodation undertaking in respect of which they are the nominated individual; (d) undertake, from time to time, such training as is appropriate to ensure that they have the experience and skills necessary to represent the supported accommodation undertaking in its dealings with the CIECSS. Fitness of registered service manager 12. An individual may only be registered as a registered service manager if— (a) the individual is of integrity and good character, (b) having regard to— (i) the number of premises used as supported accommodation, (ii) the geographical scope of the premises used as supported accommodation, (iii) the supported accommodation undertaking’s statement of purpose, (iv) the number of children accommodated by the supported accommodation undertaking, and (v) the category or categories of accommodation provided by the supported accommodation undertaking, the individual has the appropriate skillsto manage the supported accommodation undertakingeffectively, (c) the individual has the appropriate experience, which must include, within a period of five years before the day on which the application to register as a registered service manager is received by the CIECSS, having worked for a period of at least two years in a position relevant to the residential support of children or adults, …..” Registered Person – General Requirements “13. —(1) The registered provider and the registered service managermust, having regard to - (a) the number of premises used as supported accommodation by, (b) the number of children accommodated in the premises used as supported accommodation by, (c) the geographical scope of the premises used as supported accommodation by, (d) the statement of purpose of, and (e) the category or categories of supported accommodation provided by the supported accommodation undertaking concerned, carry on or manage that undertaking with sufficient care, competence and skill…..” Safeguarding policy 20. —(1) The registered person must prepare and implement a policy which— (a) is intended to safeguard children from abuse or neglect, and (b) sets out the procedure to be followed in the event of an allegation of abuse or neglect. (2) The procedure to be followed in the event of an allegation of abuse or neglect must, in particular— (a) provide for liaison and cooperation with any local authority which is, or may be, making a child protection enquiry in relation to a child accommodated by the supported accommodation undertaking; (b) provide for the prompt referral of an allegation about current or ongoing abuse or neglect in relation to a child to the accommodating authority and, if different, the local authority in whose area the premises in which the child is accommodated are located; (c) provide for the prompt referral of an allegation about past abuse or neglect in relation to a child to the accommodating authority and, if different, the local authority in whose area the alleged abuse or neglect occurred; (d) provide for records to be kept of an allegation of abuse or neglect, and the action taken in response; (e) describe the measures which may be necessary to protect children following an allegation of abuse or neglect; (f) describe how and to whom staff are to report, without delay, any concern about abuse or neglect of a child. Financial Position 35. —(1) The registered provider must carry on the supported accommodation undertaking in a manner which 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. …..”

Guidance

[10]The “Guide to the Supported Accommodation Regulations including Quality Standards” was published in March 2023, pursuant to section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It “explains and supplements the Regulations (see section 23(1A) of the 2000 Act). It provides explanations of terms used in the Regulations, sets out what is expected to meet the various requirements of the Regulations and signposts additional relevant statutory and non-statutory guidance.” (see page 5).

[11]The Guide, which runs to some 67 pages, covers a range of considerations that are the backdrop to the Regulations. We set out some which are relevant to the issues in this appeal: a) “Looked after children and care leavers are often some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society, and we must work together to do all that we can to ensure that they have access to suitable accommodation that can meet their needs and keep them safe. For most children who are not yet ready for greater levels of independence, and especially those who require increased care due to high needs, or who have additional needs, this is best achieved through a placement in foster care or a children’s home, for which there are already robust approaches to approving, registering and quality-assuring provision. However, for some young people aged 16 or 17, living in supported accommodation can be the best option to meet their needs, with the aim of supporting them to develop their independence as they approach adulthood, ahead of leaving the care system. “(page 8) b) “…supported accommodation is part of the continuum of care and support for looked after children and care leavers as they grow up, and are ready for increased independence on the path to adulthood.” (page 9) c) “Providers must tell Ofsted which category or categories they are applying to operate supported accommodation under at the point of registration. Registered persons must demonstrate that they have the capacity, appropriate experience and skills to manage or carry on the service having regard to the category or categories of supported accommodation provided.” (page 10) d) The Guide sets out and explains the four Quality Standards that must be met by supported accommodation. It does not set out instructions but sets out the high-level expectations. It also signposts other publications, research and guidance of interest which are not intended to be exhaustive. e) The four Quality Standards are: the leadership and management standard; the protection standard; the accommodation standard, and the support standard.

[12]Other guidance in the public domain specific to registration applications includes (but is not limited to):• “Supported Accommodation service registration policy” published 4 April 2023”. This describes who supported accommodation is for, the categories of supported accommodation, guidance regarding the registration stages, and hyperlinks to the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023. Amongst other matters it makes clear that supported accommodation is unlikely to be suitable when: ◦ a child has high or complex needs ◦ a child has their liberty restricted ◦ a child requires a high level of ongoing care and supervision ◦ a child requires help and support with personal care.

• “Apply to register a supported accommodation service” published 4 April 2023”. This describes in detail the registration process. This guidance states that the registration interviews “are an opportunity for you to demonstrate your skills, expertise and knowledge for your role.”

The Scott Schedule

[13]The Scott Schedule (SS) summarises the Respondent’s concerns/issues and sets out the responses of the Appellant. Whilst preparing for the hearing the panel had noted various discrepancies in references to page numbers provided in the Appellant’s responses in the SS. These appeared to refer to exhibits and other documents that had, in fact, not been provided in the bundle. These matters were drawn to the attention of the parties in an email sent by the Tribunal administration on about 15 April 2026. A revised SS was provided on 17 April 2026, but no further documents were then provided. It was said in the revised SS regarding training (issue 5):

“the Appellant has now obtained and can produce on request training certificates, attendance records; safeguarding training confirmation; management training confirmation.”

The Hearing

[14]Mrs Mukhtar was not present at the start of the hearing. Mr Lothian-Field explained that Mrs Mukhtar was looking after the children of the family and intended to come to the hearing the following day. The judge explained that it was desirable that Mrs Mukhtar attend the hearing of her own appeal given its importance in terms of the potential consequences of refusal. Given that Mrs Mukhtar was represented, and Mr Ahmed was present and wished to continue, the panel decided to proceed with case management, but requested the exploration of all other options to enable Mrs Mukhtar’s attendance and participation.

[15]Mindful of the judicial review type approach adopted in the Notice of Appeal, the judge explained the nature and scope of an appeal in this jurisdiction. It transpired that it is common ground that the Tribunal’s role is to make a merits-based decision as at today’s date and in the context of the current evidence. This may well, of course, involve consideration of public law principles.

[16]The panel asked about the records of the interviews which were not in the bundle. Mr Lothian-Field said that he had intended to raise this. We rose so that Mr Smart could take instructions and so that any issues could be considered between counsel. Thereafter, it appeared that we might need to hear submissions regarding possible objections to disclosure on public interest grounds and/or redaction issues, but copies of the records were not yet immediately available, so these points were moot.

[17]Whilst these issues were outstanding Mr Lothian-Field applied for an adjournment of the entire 4-day hearing to a later date to be fixed, and with directions to be given regarding further evidence to be filed. He referred to the need to review the interview records but said he was optimistic about how long that would take. He also referred to Mrs Mukhtar’s difficulties although he said that she would be attending the next day and, hopefully, the rest of the week. He referred also to there being further evidence regarding training certificates which was not currently available.

[18]Mr Smart adopted a neutral position regarding the adjournment application.

[19]The panel clarified the ages of Mrs Mukhtar’s children and family arrangements. It was then confirmed the Appellant could make herself available for the next three days. The panel deferred making a decision regarding the adjournment application pending the consideration of the interview records and any submissions regarding the non-disclosure and/or redaction of the same.

[20]After the midday adjournment we were provided with the interview records (“the IV records”) in both redacted and unredacted versions. In the event no argument regarding any public interest in non-disclosure was advanced. We received into evidence the unredacted documents - 21 pages re the interviews with Mrs Mukhtar and some 17 pages re the interviews with Mr Ahmed - because it was in the interests of justice to do so.In so far as some personal details such as telephone number and addresses were included we decided on a practical course. It seemed very unlikely indeed that there would need to refer to such personal details or that they would be disclosed in any decision. Further, in the rare event, (extremely rare in our experience), that a third party were to seek an order for disclosure of the interview documents hereafter, the Respondent could make representations on that third party application. In our view, the important issue regarding fairness of proceedings was that time would be needed so that Mr Lothian-Field could consider the documents and take instructions before any cross-examination.

[21]After all issues regarding the disclosure of interview records had been resolved we considered Mr Lothian-Field’s application that the hearing be adjourned to another date. Having retired to consider our decision we refused the application for reasons briefly expressed in the interest of time economy, whilst reserving fuller reasoning. We considered the application made in the context of the overriding objective. We noted that these appeals had been extensively case managed throughout. The hearing dates had been allocated as long ago as 21 November 2025. The primary exchange of witness evidence occurred in December 2025/January 2026. Application had been made by both parties to admit other late evidence. It was unclear to us why the disclosure of the interview records had not been the subject of an application in case management. Nonetheless, our task was to consider the merits of the application before us.

[22]We considered that matters had moved on since the adjournment application made earlier that morning. Mrs Mukhtar had said that she would attend the next three days of the hearing. As to the two sets of interview records, the overall effect/impact of the answers in interviews had been referred to in the NoDs and in the witness statements. We recognised that having the actual records would enable forensic scrutiny of the context of the questions asked and answers given. We considered that the interests of justice would be achieved by adjusting the timetable so that cross examination of the Respondent’s witness began the next day. In so far as the application relied on the Appellant’s wish to provide further evidence regarding training records, we noted that the Appellants had had a very long time to provide such evidence. It was, however, still open to the Appellants to collate any late evidence and to make an application as necessary.

Late Evidence

[23]On the second day of the hearing Mr Lothian-Field made an application seeking to rely on a supplemental bundle of some 9 pages, and another document from JM Training Academy dated 22 April 2026, all of which involved evidence regarding training. This application was not opposed. In these circumstances we agreed to receive the late evidence.

Oral Evidence

[24]We heard oral evidence from the following: For the Respondent Mrs Jamie Richardson, Social Care Regulatory Inspector (SCRI) Mrs Helen Fee, SCRI Mrs Jo Stephenson, Registration Inspection Manager (RIM) The Appellants Mrs Tanya Mukhtar Mr Khurum Ahmed We also received a witness statement from Mr Ellington.

[25]All witnesses called to give evidence adopted the contents of their statements as the truth, and these stood as their main evidence. Some witnesses were asked a few supplemental questions before being cross examined by the other party. We will not set out all the oral evidence given but will refer to parts as necessary when giving our reasons. We will refer to aspects of the oral evidence and closing submissions as necessary when giving our reasons.

The Burden and Standard of Proof

[26]In an appeal against the refusal of registration of a supported accommodation undertaking (SAU) it is for each Appellant to satisfy us the registration she/he seeks should be granted. Each Appellant has to show that the requirements of the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 (“the Regulations”) “are being and will continue to be complied with (so far as applicable) in relation to the establishment or agency”. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

[27]Given that the basis of the Respondent’s decisions is that each Appellant had not shown that the requirements of the Regulations 2023 “are being and will continue to be complied with”, there is an evidential burden on the Respondent to adduce evidence in support of its reasons for refusal.

[28]In this context it was agreed that it was fair and appropriate to hear the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses first.

The Appellants’ case

[29]As we have said the grounds of appeal lodged with the appeal were lengthy. In broad summary it is contended that: i. the decision regarding the provider was made before reference(s) were provided. The grounds refer to predetermination, silent withdrawal, closed mind-set, inconsistency and irrationality. ii. new grounds were introduced between the NoPs and the NoDs so breaching natural justice: this creates the impression of “retro-fitting” reasons to support a previously reached conclusion. iii. taking the Respondent’s case at its highest, these (the reasons for refusal) were, at most, curable documentation or learning points. Outright refusal was a disproportionate response. In comparable cases a further interview has been offered or opportunities to clarify matters. The applicant was not afforded this, despite expressly engaging with Ofsted, and being in a position to address any residual points. iv. Ofsted failed to consider less intrusive alternatives that would have safeguarded the public interest without causing disproportionate prejudice to the Applicant. For example, allowing a further interview or targeted clarification would have been a proportionate step. Instead, Ofsted proceeded directly to refusal. This demonstrates not only disproportionality but an inconsistent approach with how other providers have been treated. v. The ground of appeal thereafter set out the applicants’ position on the issues of(a) (A) Training and Staff Competence:

(b) (B) Financial Viability:

(d) (D) Professional References and Testimonies;

(e) (E) Fitness and Experience of Key Persons; 5. Urgency and Prejudice from Delay. vi. Financial viability is supported by reserves and liquidity that allow for gradual admissions. The legal test is said to be “safe and sustainable operation not guaranteed occupancy”.

Our Consideration

[30]It is common ground that, standing in the shoes of the Regulator, we are required to determine the matter afresh and to make our own decision based on the evidence as at the date of the hearing.

[31]Subject to fairness, we can consider any new information or material that was not available at the date of decision which is relevant in our “de novo” decision-making. So, an appellant may contend that, whatever the position at the time of the decision, that position has changed materially and may bring evidence to support that. This could include bringing evidence to show that the facts and circumstances were not as alleged or as interpreted by the Respondent at the time. They may seek to show that the opinions or conclusions reached were wrong, mistaken or unreasonable. They may also seek to show that the issues have since been addressed and/or that knowledge and understanding has developed such that they now meet the requirements of the Regulations.

[32]The redetermination in this appeal includes consideration of the evidence provided by both sides as well as the oral evidence which has now been tested in cross-examination. We have considered all the evidence and submissions before us with care. It is not necessary to make findings on every point of dispute between the parties. We will focus our findings on what we consider to be core issues. If we do not refer to any particular aspect it should not be assumed that we have not taken all of the evidence or submissions into account.

[33]The consolidated appeals concern the applications made by the proposed provider of the SAU and for registration of the proposed service manager. In practical terms the applications are mutually dependent. The outcome of the provider application/appeal is always key because the application of the proposed RSM is specific to the SAU for which the provider seeks registration. Equally, the registration of a provider cannot be granted unless the RSM application is granted. Registration of the SM is personal. Registration of the company as provider is not transferable. Ultimately, there must be separate consideration of the merits of each appeal.

[34]We find that the basic background facts are as set out at paragraph 7 above. There are additional background matters that are relevant to an understanding of the evidence in context. These include: a) Both applications were made on 9 March 2024. The background includes that Mrs Mukhtar has an B.Sc. (ordinary) degree in Psychology which was awarded in December 2014 by the University of Bradford. b) We will return to the detail regarding the past employment history of each applicant at a later stage but say here that we are aware from the oral evidence that 2023 and 2024, in particular, were very difficult years for each Appellant. Both Appellants suffered significant bereavements. Mr Ahmed told us that he was very close to his father who, sadly, became very ill in 2023 and died in 2024. He had worked with his father for a number of years in the family business, GMEX Entertainment Ltd, before going to work in social care in 2021. He told us also that Mrs Mukhtar’s grandmother, to whom she was very close, died in 2025. c) The overall process regarding registration applications involves three distinct processes, the first of which is background checks and references. d) It appears from the overview evidence of Mrs Stephenson, RIM, that the prolonged registration process was in part due to the Appellant applying under the legal entity of Luminery Care Limited but submitting their application under the name of ‘Luminary Care Limited’. e) The grounds of appeal complain about delay after the applications were lodged. Mrs Richardson in her first statement explains that the applications were effectively put on hold because of Mrs Mukhtar’s maternity leave, and also because Mr Akthar was unsure whether he wished to proceed with the RSM application made. f) On 29 July 2024 Mrs Mukhtar returned the call of Ms Tara Lovatt, (SCRI), informing her she had been very busy and unable to respond. Mrs Mukhtar enquired about converting the application submitted to Ofsted from supported accommodation to a children’s home application. Ms Lovatt explained this could not be done and a new application would be required. Mrs Mukhtar confirmed that she would carry on with the SA application and also confirmed that Mr Ahmed would not be withdrawing from the RSM position. g) One of the original referees nominated by Mrs Mukhtar did not respond. The second referee did not declare that she had authority to provide the reference. An additional reference was requested, and Mr Ellington was nominated. The reference of Mr Ellington had to be chased. h) There was a delay from August 2024whilst Mrs Mukhtar obtained up to date DBS certificates, which arrived on 22 October 2024. i) Ofsted proposed holding the interview on 12 March 2025. In early 2025 Mrs Mukhtar had requested a later date for the interview (due to Ramadan) so it was arranged for 9 April 2025. j) At the time of the interview on 9 April 2025 Mrs Richardson realised that Mr Ellington had not completed the form so as to confirm he had the appropriate authority to provide the reference. He duly did so when contacted. k) In any event we find that Mr Ellington’s reference was never a reason for refusal of the application.

[35]We have considered the arguments raised in the grounds of appeal and repeated in witness statements. In our view the arguments regarding pre-determination are misconceived or do not have any substance. Amongst other matters, the notion that a positive reference from an employer means that the regulator is thereafter unable to form its own view regarding capacity, skills and experience, and all aspects of the requirements of the Regulations, is unsound.

[36]The requirements that have to be met by an applicant in order to be registered to be a provider or as the RSM regarding supported accommodation are set out in the Regulations. In our view it is made clear in the published guidance that the interview is a very important part of the registration process.

[37]Mrs Mukhtar’s oral evidence was that she felt the fact that she had been asked by Ms Richardson about her involvement with unregistered homes at the beginning of the interview on 9 April 2025 was unfair. She said that it led her to the view that Mrs Richardson was biased. She made clear in her oral evidence that she thought at the time that Mrs Richardson’s questions about her involvement in unregistered homes arose because of her race. This is a serious allegation. It had not previously been raised in any statement Mrs Mukthar had provided.

[38]We have considered the email Mrs Mukhtar wrote to Mrs Richardson at 14.42 on the very day that the interview had been held. In this she had thanked Mrs Richardson for the interview, said that she and her husband appreciated the time spent with them during the interview and that “you made us feel so welcome and at ease, and we genuinely enjoyed the experience.”

[39]Mrs Mukhtar told us that she wrote in these terms because she wanted to be professional. In our view it is notable that at the end of the interview Mrs Mukhtar had been asked:

“do you have any comment about the way I have conducted this interview?”

. Mrs Richardson recorded Mrs Mukhtar’s response as: “No amazing thank you First question threw me every time we get the letter by the book with everything literally. Frazzled. Learned 100 from this we have said not referral not ever risk it every again. LA have been to us and we have said no. I cannot understand how the LA was oblivious” (sic).

[40]In this Mrs Mukhtar was referring to the fact that a number of letters had been sent by Ofsted regarding care being provided in unregistered premises. In summary, the proposed NI had provided care in unregistered settings at various addresses (sequentially) despite being asked to cease or register on some five occasions.

[41]We recognise that, given the feelings of shame and regret that Mrs Mukhtar described regarding her involvement with unregistered homes, she may well have felt very uncomfortable when she was asked questions about this.

[42]In the IV records this was asked:

“To your knowledge have you ever been involved in an unregistered service?”

. Mrs Mukhtar said in interview that they were approached by Kirklees Council at the beginning of 2024 and asked to accept an urgent placement of a 14 year-old child. Mrs Mukhtar said that they did not have a clue this was not allowed. They sheltered the child for a while: because the local authority (LA) made the request they thought it was OK. In his interview on 9 April 2025 Mr Ahmed explained that this arose through his work at Inspire Homes with a social worker as Kirklees Council. Because of his background, and Mrs Mukhtar’s psychology background, they (the Council) wanted to send them complex cases. The two children (i.e. for whom unregistered care was provided) were “high risks”.

[43]In our view Mrs Richardson was duty bound to ask the question and to explore the applicants’ involvement with providing care to a child/children in an unregistered setting. We consider that the questions Mrs Richardson asked were entirely appropriate.

[44]We find that Mrs Richardson in her overall evaluation considered, on balance, that both Mrs Mukhtar and Mr Ahmed were suitable i.e. a fit and proper persons for the roles applied for. In other words, the circumstances regarding the unregistered provision did not lead to any negative conclusion, let alone pre-judgement.

[45]We considered Mrs Mukhtar’s oral evidence regarding the answers she gave in her interview on 9 April 2025. This was to the effect that the fact she was asked about whether she had provided care in an unregistered setting had affected her ability to give of her best in interview in relation to all other areas. This was a repeated theme in Mrs Mukhtar’s oral evidence before us. We will return to this below when considering Mrs Mukhtar’s evidence on specific issues.

[46]It is, however, appropriate to make this observation regarding due process and equality of arms. If, as she maintains, Mrs Mukhtar felt at a disadvantage, and was not able to give of her best in the interview on 9 April 2025, or even in the further interview on 6 August 2025, we consider that she has been provided with ample opportunity to seek to address the issues since then: in her response to the NOP; in further representations; in her response to the NOD; in her witness statements in her appeal, and in her oral evidence.

[47]In the response in the SS regarding her skill and experience, it was said that Ms Mukhtar’s evidence demonstrates that she has “extensive practical experience in supported accommodation and semi-independent provision for 16-17 years old.”

[48]The reference given is to Mrs Mukhtar’s statement paras 4-17 (not identified by date) which, it is said, explains the regulatory framework. (We note in passing that none of Mrs Mukhtar’s three statements before us (12.12.25; 15.01.26; and 23.02.26) contain paragraphs numbered 4-17 on this particular topic).

[49]The nature of an application for registration, and the legal process involved in any appeal, is that it is for Mrs Mukhtar to demonstrate her experience and skill. We noted that reference has been made to Mrs Mukhtar’s C.V. However, we have not been provided with this. There is very little in her witness statements that sets out her background and experience. Indeed, the details of her experience largely emerged only in answer to the panel’s questions.

[50]It is apparent from the employment section in the IV record and her oral evidence that Mrs Mukhtar worked between June 2015 and October 2020 as a store manager of a shop selling children’s clothes. In answer to our questions, she said that she left in order to start her family. She worked as a support worker for Inspire Homes between 1 June 2021 and 1 July 2022. We understand from Mr Ahmed’s evidence that Inspire Homes ran “semi-independent homes”. This refers to the model of care provided under the purview/reach of the local authority, before the supported accommodation Regulations were enacted. Mrs Mukhtar left that employment due to the birth of her third child. She had explained in interview that, whilst on this break, she used the time to start researching and creating policies for “our home. I spent time creating the business plan and liaising with professionals to get a better understanding of the legislations surrounding young people needing support.”

[51]In answer to the panel Mrs Mukhtar explained that her hours of work at Inspire Homes had been about 12 hours per week. She said that she worked mainly in the morning. When asked what her role involved, she said that she would sign in, speak to manager, (ask) the young person what their activities are, if young person was going to college - talk about the day, what he has to do and everything set out for him re day to day activities and support.

[52]Mrs Mukhtar was given the opportunity by the panel to explain more about her background. She told us that some years ago she had worked as an HR assistant for about 15 months. She had completed half of a Level 7 course in Management but she had not been able to complete this because of the expense and personal reasons. She considered that her role in the children’s shop had provided her with transferable people skills.

[53]In our view Mrs Mukhtar’s experience in providing or managing social care is extremely limited.

[54]In her oral evidence Mrs Mukhtar repeatedly said that the 28 days provided under statute to respond to the NOP dated 3 June 2025 was not enough because she was preoccupied with what she saw as the challenge to her integrity. She was extremely upset that she had been asked questions in interview about her involvement with an unregistered setting. We will return to other aspects of her oral evidence at a later stage but should say here that we do not accept that Mrs Mukhtar, (or Mr Ahmed), had insufficient time to respond to the NOPs. Firstly, on the face of it 28 days would ordinarily provide a reasonable period of time to explain why one meets the requirements of the Regulations and to address issues regarding policies. Secondly, substantive representations were provided by the Appellant, and on behalf of Mr Ahmed in response to the NOPs. These are undated but we accept the evidence of Mrs Richardson that these were received by Ofsted on 16 June 2025. Revised policies were also submitted at the same time. In other words, the Appellant and Mr Ahmed responded to the NOP within about 13 days. They did not use the full 28 days permitted to them under the Act to seek to address the issues of concern raised by the Respondent.

[55]In the first interview on 9 April 2025 Mrs Mukhtar was asked for an example of when she had challenged safeguarding practice. She referred to an occasion when she had worked in a women’s refuge and there being times when a child was left unattended by the mother. Mrs Richardson made a record as follows: “She told 2 x mos she left baby unattended. I told her not safe should not be doing it she realised this. She keep putting baby in bath tub. I told home manager and we told her we can report this to SC we have verbal word first then would report. This is example for both safeguarded a child by speaking to mother. I spoke out to managers and other MOS did not. I wanted to save child and my own back. Act accordingly that I did it feels like a right brag I safeguarded child and reported key work. Child hours on end suffering in bath tub (referred to mum) suffering from mental health she did not see anything wrong education was key after educating her did it again. Needs to stop.” (sic) (our italics)

[56]In the representations dated 16 June 2025 Mrs Mukhtar said:

“During the interview her safeguarding example was misinterpreted. For clarity, here is the full scenario: “One of the most serious safeguarding situations I encountered involved a refugee mother who left her one- and three-year-old children unattended in the bath. I calmly but firmly intervened, accompanied her to secure the children, served a formal safeguarding warning, escalated the incident via our safeguarding concern form, and ensured she accessed parenting support. I also reported a colleague’s failure to intervene. This underscores my commitment to swift, confident safeguarding action.”

[57]In our view the Appellant’s account given in interview did show an awareness of risk, and that the safeguarding incident must be reported. It appears from the account recorded by Mrs Richardson in interview that Mrs Mukhtar did report the matter to her own manager at the time. It was an example of having challenged safeguarding practice (which is what she had been asked about) because she had reported the lack of action by other members of staff to her manager. The fact that the manager chose to deal with the matter with a warning to the parent rather than a referral to social care was not explored with Mrs Mukhtar in interview. We are not critical of Mrs Mukhtar’s response in the interview.

[58]We remind ourselves of the need for the Appellant to demonstrate that the requirements of the Regulations will be met. In our view, in the context of all the evidence regarding the limitations of her experience, it is unfortunate that Mrs Mukhtar did not take the opportunity in this appeal to demonstrate that she has a clear and robust understanding of safeguarding by references to other examples. It is unfortunate that her witness statements have instead focussed on criticisms or complaints about the regulator rather than demonstrating her knowledge, skills and experience by reference to actual examples.

[59]In our view Mrs Mukhtar has also not taken the opportunity to address significant issues regarding the policies provided in support of the application. This may well be a reflection of her very limited experience working in social care. In our view the policies relied upon, even at the time of the second interview in August 2025, contained many references to matters relevant to care in a children’s home. It seems apparent from the background regarding the unregistered care of two 14/15 years old children that Mrs Mukthar had wanted to apply for registration as a children’s home. It was not disputed that she had, indeed, asked Mrs Lovatt if the SA application (with which we are concerned) could be converted to a children’s home application.

[60]In her oral evidence when asked about the policies produced in this application Mrs Mukhtar spoke about the references to the Care Act. She said she wrote it out in a draft way and would come back to it when legislation was released. Mrs Mukhtar repeatedly said she had not got back to amending the policies because she had focussed on what she saw as an attack on her integrity - which she had to tackle in 28 days. She also suggested that there had been an allegation regarding integrity of herself and Mr Ahmed in a different NoP but this had been removed in a subsequent NoP. She said Mr Ahmed would explain.

[61]When he was asked about this Mr Ahmed made clear in his evidence that there had only ever been one version of the NoP (i.e.one for the provider and one for him). He said that he was not suggesting that there had been “doctored documents”. He made clear that his concern related to a particular passage on the NOP which we set out in full (p515 para 4) “4. During the registration process, both the proposed nominated individual and the proposed registered service manager confirmed that you, as the provider, would accommodate children whose individual needs are beyond the scope of children that should be accommodated in supported accommodation. This included children subject to Deprivation of Liberty Orders. This raises serious concerns about your intention and ability as a provider to operate in line with the Regulations.” Mr Ahmed contends that this implied that he and Mrs Mukhtar will not follow the guidelines going forward and that they were being pre-judged.

[62]The evidence as a whole tends to suggest that both Mrs Mukhtar and Mr Ahmed do not understand that the role of the regulator is to ensure that registration (of the specific roles involved) is only granted to persons who can demonstrate that they have the ability to meet the requirements and will continue to do so. This is so in order to protect the interests, i.e. the safety and well-being, of a vulnerable group of young people. This is made clear in the published guidance for those who seek to make applications to register.

[63]It was also made clear in the introduction section of each interview: it is for the applicant “to demonstrate that they have the knowledge, understanding and ability to operate the service in accordance with the law and that they meet the requirements for registration.”

[64]Having considered the evidence in the round we do not consider that the Respondent as an institution, or by its officers, had pre-judged matters or that the inspectors, or Mrs Stephenson as the RIM, were biased, or that they were prejudiced or behaved in a discriminatory or inconsistent manner. We find that the evidence tends to show the Respondent’s inspectors and Mrs Stephenson had approached the issues with an open mind, albeit that their procedural context/ framework was that the applicants were expected to demonstrate that they met the regulations.

[65]We consider that the dissatisfaction of Mrs Mukhtar and Mr Ahmed with the process is based in a lack of understanding that they each needed to show their understanding of the requirements and their ability to meet them going forwards.

[66]A second interview was offered by Ofsted because the impact of the representations made was that the Appellants had undertaken further learning. The second interview was conducted by Mrs Richardson and Mrs Fee on 6 August 2025. We refer to the reasons for refusal in the NoD. Essentially, although it was acknowledged that there had been some learning there were residual and repeated themes which left the Respondent unsatisfied that the Appellants fully understood the differences between the scope of, and approach to, care in supported accommodation, and that in a children’s home.

[67]Mrs Mukhtar told us that that she had written all the policies. She said that she did so without relying on any material provided to her from any other source but had researched government websites and wrote all the policies herself. We consider that there is tangible evidence that the original Safeguarding and Child Protection policy was based on that of another provider because it named a person (“Director, Aliya Rana”) who, on any basis, had nothing to do with the Appellant company. In one sense, it matters not. As the judge explained to Mrs Mukhtar there is nothing wrong in using, or even copying and pasting, any resources available as a basis for policies. The important caveat is that such policies have to be fully adapted and specifically tailored to the proposed undertaking. The name of the Director to be approached in the absence of the Designated Safeguarding Lead still appeared in the policy at the time of the second interview. It was, however, removed from the last version before us.

[68]In our view an overarching issue regarding the policies provided by the Appellants is that there are still references to aspects of care that relate to the provision of care in children’s homes, and which would be inappropriate in supported accommodation. The fact that, even after revision, the policies still include matters that reflect care in a children’s home (i.e. pocket money, sanctions etc.) is a matter of concern. The fact that such errors endure suggests a lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of Mrs Mukthar and Ms Ahmed regarding the proper nature and scope of supported accommodation. We accept the opinion of Mrs Stephenson that it is critical that the policy documents to which staff are expected to work are clear and consistent.

[69]There has never been an issue regarding Mr Ahmed’s experience. Having worked for Inspire Homes between 2021 and 2013 he has had the necessary 2 years’ experience within the previous five years required under regulation 12.

[70]The essential reason for refusal of his application to be the RSM was that he had shown a very poor understanding of the regulations, and what supported accommodation involves.

[71]In his witness statement dated 29 December 2025 (para 16) Mr Ahmed said that during the registration process he had engaged with the Regulations and guidance and had contributed to drafting and “refining key documents including the statement of purpose and Operational Policies. KA3”. Exhibit KA3 are the Behaviour Management Policy, the Safeguarding/Child Protection policy and the Statement of Purpose). He went on to refer in his statement to drafting errors (paras 19 – 21) and proactive steps he had taken to address “areas of ambiguity and strengthen his regulatory knowledge and operational clarity.” He said in this statement that “all core policies and operational documents were comprehensively reviewed and revised to ensure precise alignment with supported accommodation requirements.”

[72]However, Mrs Stephenson in her oral evidence showed the extent to which the policies on which both Appellants now rely are inappropriate. Indeed, in his oral evidence Mr Ahmed acknowledged that the policies before us were not “where they needed to be”. We consider that it is notable that it has taken so long for Mr Ahmed to acknowledge this.

[73]We accept the evidence of Mrs Stephenson that a second interview was offered because the Appellants said they undertaken more training that made them more suitable for registration.

[74]As set out above at the very start of the hearing we received a bundle of training certificates. By way of overview it appears that few, if any, certificates had been provided at the interview on 6 August 2025. They were not produced in this appeal until the second day of the hearing. It is difficult to understand why the simple production of sufficient evidence to substantiate the training that has taken place has been so problematic. The end result is that we now have before us certificates regarding Mr Ahmed, but not Mrs Mukhtar. She told us that “most of the training he has done I have done”.

[75]Mr Ahmed told us that he had not yet been able to complete the Level 5 Diploma in Leadership for Residential Childcare in which he enrolled on 13 October 2023, and for which the anticipated completion date was 13 October 2024, because the provider has gone into administration. He said that he hoped that another institution will take on the course.

[76]We noted that Mr Ahmed completed training on the “Roles and Responsibilities of a Responsible Individual” on 2 December 2024. However, the role of the Responsible Individual is relevant in the provision of care in a children’s home. Mr Ahmed told us that he thought it was good to have an insight into this role. We noted also that the letter from the JM Training Academy states that Mr Ahmed and Mrs Mukhtar undertook a “Responsible Individual and Registered Manager coaching programme over a three week period in June 2025. The letter states “this programme prepares the delegates for their roles and responsibilities in line with Ofsted Standards, the SCIFF and all Legislation relevant to residential Children’s Services.” (We note in passing that the reference to “the SCIFF” should be to the “SCCIF” - the Social Care Common Inspection Framework. The SCCIF relates to children’s homes although it includes a separate framework for inspection regarding supported accommodation for 16 and 17-year old care leavers).

[77]We considered all the evidence regarding the second interviews. Whilst we agree that the answers by both appellants in the second interview showed improvement, there were still significant areas that showed a lack of knowledge and understanding. Amongst other matters, Mrs Mukhtar was unable to demonstrate knowledge of the category of supported accommodation that had been applied for. When asked specifically about the category of non-ring fenced accommodation, Mrs Mukhtar was unable to answer, instead stating that they had extended to four young people rather than three due to the profit margins. Mrs Richardson questioned her regarding the category again, but Mrs Mukhtar was unable to answer and instead spoke about flexibility with funds, support, activities and money to support children, for example with mental health. Mrs Richardson was concerned because it became clear that Mrs Mukhtar had no knowledge of the category of supported accommodation they had applied for. We agree that it is imperative that providers have a clear understanding of the category they are applying for. A lack of understanding could lead to children being placed in the wrong setting, potentially leaving risks being unmanaged.

[78]Mrs Mukhtar did not demonstrate in the second interview that she knew or understood the content of the new policies that had been submitted. For example, the then Statement of Purpose outlined that the service could take children involved in county lines, yet when asked in interview Mrs Mukhtar confirmed this was not the case.

[79]Mrs Mukhtar’ was also asked in the second interview about the Behaviour Management Policy and the YP Guide. The latter referred to sanctions such as missing out on an activity or the Wifi being turned off which would be inappropriate in supported accommodation. Mrs Mukhtar said that no sanctions would be used which suggests that she was unaware of what was in the policy.

[80]Mrs Richardson considered that although Mr Ahmed demonstrated some learning around the needs of children suited to supported accommodation in his second interview, he was unable to demonstrate understanding of the category of accommodation the Appellant had applied for. Mr Ahmed described non ring- fenced accommodation as "staff can work across the homes, support the young people according to their needs, shared accommodation and no solo accommodation." The essential point is that the category applied for, non ring -fenced shared accommodation, means that persons older than 16 or 17 who are not care-experienced can be accommodated. Someone who aspires to be an RSM should be aware of the actual category applied for.

[81]When asked about the reference to sanctions in the Behaviour Management Policy (BMP) in the second interview Ms Ahmed mentioned providing pocket money at the end of the week as an incentive. This is not a matter that aligns with supported accommodation. Mrs Richardson considered that it was not clear that Mr Ahmed knew what was in the policy on this topic. When asked about limitation of access to privacy or any area in the premises, Mr Ahmed referred to a COSSH (control of substances hazardous to health) cupboard for the storage of bleach etc., if a young person became dysregulated. We agree with Mrs Richardson that this conflicts with the learning taken about children’s needs as suited to supported accommodation. If a young person has such needs a care setting would be more appropriate.

[82]The role of RSM is one that carries a great deal of responsibility. It is the RSM who is responsible for the day to day management of an undertaking in accordance with the Regulations. The Regulations and the explanatory guidance emphasise the core importance of the quality standards which included the leadership and management standard. Policies are highly important because, as Mrs Stephenson said, they set the standards for all members of staff to follow, and so as to ensure consistent and high-quality support that is needed for this vulnerable group.

[83]We accept the evidence of Mrs Stephenson and the inspectors that the revised policy documents provided by the Appellant still contain material that is relevant to the provision of care in a children’s home, but which are inappropriate in an SAU. In our view these are not errors in drafting and/or legacy and/or minor issues. They demonstrate that a lack of understanding by both Appellants that the needs of children in a children’s home, and the needs of 16 and 17 years old care leavers in supported accommodation are very different. The notion that the confused approach still found in the Appellant’s policies can be “remediated” by amendment as a paper exercise is illusory. In our view the defects in the policies are not (as contended in the grounds of appeal) “curable documentation or learning points”. The defects are illustrative of a lack of understanding regarding the model of care under the supported accommodation Regulations.

[84]The nature of an appeal in this jurisdiction is such that Mrs Mukhtar and Mr Ahmed have had a very significant opportunity to seek to address the issues. We consider that the fact that there are persisting issues regarding policies is startling. Neither appellant has satisfied us that their individual understanding of the model of care involved in supported accommodation is one that accords with the Regulations.

Financial Viability

[85]In the NOP to the provider on 3 June 2025 the Respondent stated:

“You, as the provider, have been unable to demonstrate the financial viability of the supported accommodation service you intend to operate. The cash flow forecast submitted as part of your application shows a low reserve fund. When asked about your organisation’s finances in interview, the nominated individual referred to being able to use property and assets. Not having sufficient funds available to support the running of the service risks instability for children.”

[86]The response made in the Representations (received 16 June 2025) was that:

“Following Ofsted’s initial concerns regarding financial viability, we undertook a full review of our financial model and revised our forecast from three to four placements at £1,500 per week. This adjustment projects an annual income of £390,000 against operating costs of £267,456, resulting in a projected surplus of £122,544. This surplus provides a strong financial buffer to absorb unexpected costs, maintain service quality, and ensure continuity of operations without disruption. We currently hold over £20,000 reserve in our bank account, which covers approximately 4-6 weeks of core operating costs, and have access to additional funds through personal savings and a contingency loan facility if required. Our financial model does not rely on property or other non-liquid assets.”

[87]We accept that Mrs Stephenson has many years’ experience in the provision of LA care and services for children. Prior to joining Ofsted in 2011 she was employed in Local Authority Children’s Services, including as a senior leader for five years. Her view is that it is unrealistic for a supported accommodation provision to be at full occupancy on, and from, day one. There is a Local Authority framework system dealing with demand and supply. She said that there will be hundreds of providers: there are 33,000 bed spaces in the system. The Appellants’ projections depend in full occupancy from the start. It is more likely that it will take 4/5 months to have one place filled, and, thereafter, to slowly build up over months, until LA trust is established. There is not a shortage in the supply of supported accommodation. She also emphasized the key importance of making sure that there was a careful matching process in relation to care leavers coming to live in the home. We attach significant weight to Mrs Stephenson’s views. They are borne of many years’ experience in social care, including significant local authority experience.

[88]In our view the evidence shows that the provider response to concerns regarding viability was to increase the number of places from 3 to 4 so as to project greater potential profitability to provide a “buffer”. We do not accept that this is realistic. We accept Mrs Stephenson’s evidence that the basis for the Appellants’ projections regarding financial viability is not reliable.

[89]In our view financial viability is very important matter. We recognise that 16 and 17 years olds who need supported accommodation are likely to have already suffered significant instability in their lives. The overall security of such placements is key to their well-being. It is important that a provider is able to demonstrate that the setting is/will be financially viable so that vulnerable young people are protected from having to move because of financial difficulties due to viability issues. In our view it is not for Ofsted to set a sum: it is for the provider to show that its plans and cash reserves have been thought through, and are realistic. In our view the provider has not done so.

Overall Conclusion

[90]The Appellant company has not established on the balance of probabilities that registration as a provider of a supported accommodation undertaking should be granted. The Appellant, by its sole director and proposed NI, has not satisfied us that the requirements of paragraph 11 (5) (b) and 11 (7) (c) of the Regulations are met. Mr Ahmed has not satisfied us that he meets the requirements of paragraph 12 (b) of the Regulations.

[91]Neither Appellant has satisfied us that the requirements of Regulation 13 are met – i.e. that they are able to carry on or manage the undertaking with sufficient care, competence and skill.

[92]Any right to be registered under the Act is subject to the requirement that each applicant shows that the Regulations “are being and will be complied with.” We have found that neither Appellant has satisfied us that this is, or will be, the case.

[93]Having considered all the evidence in the round we find that the decisions made by the Respondent to refuse registration in each application were in accordance with the law and were justified and necessary in pursuit of the public interest in the protection of the health, safety and well-being of young adults in need of supported accommodation.

Proportionality

[94]We must balance the interests of each Appellant against the public interests engaged. Proportionality requires consideration of the least restrictive measure(s) that are consistent with the public interests engaged, namely, the public interest in the protection and promotion of the safety and well-being of a vulnerable group in society: 16 and 17-year old young people in care, or care leavers.

[95]We acknowledge that the consequences of the refusal of the provider and RSM applications are very significant for both Appellants. Mrs Mukhtar and Mr Ahmed have invested significant time, effort and expense in seeking registration. Both Appellants have spoken of their passion and interest in this field.

[96]The consequence of refusal of Mr Ahmed’s appeal need to be separately considered: if the decision in this appeal is adverse, he will be automatically disqualified from fostering a child privately, or being concerned in the management, or having a financial interest in a children’s home, without disclosing this fact to Ofsted and obtaining written consent. Moreover, a provider may not employ him in a children’s home because he is disqualified from fostering, unless the provider obtains written consent from Ofsted. We agree that these matters may well involve serious consequences if Mr Ahmed were to seek to work in a Children’s home. He and/or a relevant provider can, however, apply for written consent (i.e. waiver of disqualification) from Ofsted.

[97]We recognise that the Act provides us with the power to impose conditions. Mr Lothian-Field submitted that any deficits in policy documentation could be met by conditions requiring those aspects to be rectified. He submitted that this would be proportionate given the consequences of refusal for both appellants, and for Mr Ahmed in particular.

[98]We recognise as a general proposition that, dependent on the facts in any given case, there may be discrete/specific issues that might be adequately addressed by an appropriate condition on registration. However, we do not consider that the imposition of conditions would be appropriate in either of these appeals. We are not persuaded that it is appropriate to impose conditions requiring compliance with fundamental requirements of the Regulations. In our view, to do so would very seriously undermine the protections afforded by the Regulations to vulnerable young people. The point of the Regulations is to seek to ensure that registration is only granted to those who can demonstrate their ability to meet the Regulations at the point of registration.

[99]We have considered the evidence regarding the impact of our decisions on the private and business life interests of both appellants. In our view the public interest engaged and the needs of those whom the Regulations seek to protect outweigh the interests of each Appellant. The decisions made are proportionate. Decision The decisions made by the Respondent on 21 August 2025 regarding the application of each Appellant are confirmed. Both appeals are dismissed. Judge Goodrich First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date Issued: 26 May 2026