Carmen Nosegbe v Ofsted

The Appeal

1. Mrs Carmen Nosegbe (“the Appellant”) appeals against the notice of suspension dated 13 January 2026, to suspend her registration as manager of Safe Hands Care and Support Services, 1007 Stockport Road, Levenshulme, M19 2TB ('the provider'). The suspension is for a period of 12 weeks until 7 April 2026.

2. The appeal was first brought before the Tribunal for a final hearing on 03 February 2026 but was adjourned as the Appellant argued she had intended to lodge an appeal on behalf of the provider against its suspension which took effect on the same date. The appeal was adjourned and after the provider lodged its appeal, as the evidence was said to be the same in both matters, the appeals were listed to be heard together to avoid delay.

3. By the time of the final hearing, Mrs Nosegbe had been suspended as an employee of the provider and the provider’s appeal was being conducted by Mr Adil Ashraf, a director. Representation:

4. Mrs Nosegbe attended and represented herself.

5. The Respondent was represented by Miss Rachel Birks, solicitor, who was instructed by Catriona Thomson, solicitor, both of Ward Hadaway Solicitors. Witnesses

6. The Respondent called Deborah Holder, Susan Garner and Mark Woodbridge as witnesses. Mrs Michelle Edge, Senior Ofsted Inspector, attended as an observer on the first day of hearing. On the second day, Ms Sarah Urding, Assistant Regional Director, attended as an observer.

7. The Appellant gave evidence and called as witnesses Mr Adil Ashraf, Mr Haroon Ashraf, and Ms Omaima Ali. Mr Saeed attended as a witness. He had not made a statement, and it was unclear what evidence he could give. The Appellant stated he could give evidence about the workings of the provider’s office. We decided not to hear evidence from Mr Saeed as to do so could cause unfairness in the hearing to the Respondent which had not received notice of Mr Saeed’s evidence and had not therefore had an opportunity to respond to it or to prepare questions for him. Restricted reporting order

8. The Tribunal makes a restricted reporting order under Rule 14(1)(a) and (b) of the 2008 Rules, prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any documents or matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the children or young people referred to in this case so as to protect their private lives. Late Evidence

9. There was an application from Ofsted to admit a further statement of Deborah Holder dated 04 March 2026. The evidence was admitted in respect of this appeal only. After the first day of the hearing Ofsted applied to admit a further statement from Deborah Holder dated 13 March 2026. Mrs Nosegbe stated that she had no view on the application, she argued the evidence contained in the statement was taken out of context and no disciplinary hearing for her had yet taken place. We considered the statement relevant to the issues in the appeal as it contained updated information relating to the provider’s internal action against Mrs Nosegbe and the current status of the LADO investigation. These were matters already in the knowledge of Mrs Nosegbe and there was therefore no prejudice to her in admitting the evidence.

10. We previously directed that a statement made by Deborah Holder in respect of the appeal brought by the provider should not be disclosed to Mrs Nosegbe on the grounds argued by Ofsted that it contained safeguarding information she should not possess due to her suspension as an employee of the provider.

11. Having heard this evidence at the first day of the hearing in the absence of Mrs Nosegbe, we invited further submissions from the Respondent as to the serious harm they anticipated would be caused to any person by the disclosure to Mrs Nosegbe of this information.

12. Ofsted argued that this was an unusual situation in which two appeals were being heard together before Ofsted knew that the manager had been suspended as an employee of the provider.

13. Ofsted did not suggest that serious harm would be caused if the statements of Deborah Holder were disclosed to Mrs Nosegbe, its concern was more that the data held by Ofsted ought not be disclosed too widely.

14. We decided that the statements of Deborah Holder dated 13 March 2026 and 03 March 2026 should be served upon Mrs Nosegbe applying the test in Rule 14: (2) The Tribunal may give a direction prohibiting the disclosure of a document or information to a person if— (a) the Tribunal is satisfied that such disclosure would be likely to cause that person or some other person serious harm; and (b) the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the interests of justice, that it is proportionate to give such a direction.

15. There was no apparent risk of serious harm, and as the statement contained information relevant to a witness, Haroon Ashraf, upon whose evidence Mrs Nosegbe relied, we considered it was in the interests of justice to direct that Ofsted serve these statements upon her under Rule 15(1)(a) and (b).

16. The hearing on the second day was adjourned for 30 minutes to allow Mrs Nosegbe to read the statements. Ms Holder was recalled as a witness and Mrs Nosegbe was given an opportunity to ask further questions.

17. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Nosegbe had received, and had an opportunity to respond to, all of the evidence relevant to her appeal and that after these arrangements were made she was in possession of the same evidence as that heard in the appeal brought by the provider. The hearing

18. This was a remote video hearing. Neither party raised an objection to the form of hearing. The Tribunal determined that the type of hearing was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective at Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules (2008) and considered the requirements of Rule 27. There were no significant connectivity issues for either party or their witnesses. The connection to the witnesses Haroon Ashraf and Omaima Ali froze several times but was restored swiftly each time. Background Relevant regulatory history

19. The Appellant is the registered manager of Safe Hands Care and Support Services (SHCSS), a provider registered with the respondent to provide supported accommodation to children in a self-contained unit and in a shared or group living situation. The provider has seven single occupancy premises and four shared accommodation premises. The Appellant has been registered as the manager since 16 December 2024.

20. The provider SHCSS has been subjected to inspections and is currently subject to separate enforcement action and compliance action by the Respondent, arising from concerns relating to its leadership and management and the protection of children.

21. Ofsted issued the Appellant with a notice of suspension dated 13 January 2026 suspending the Appellant's registration as manager of SHCSS for a period of 12 weeks from 13 January 2026 to 7 April 2026. The decision was made under section 14 A and 20B of the Care Standards Act 2000 (the 'Act'), the associated Regulations made under that Act and the Social Care Enforcement Policy. Events leading to the issue of the current notice of statutory suspension

22. On 23 November 2025 the Respondent received anonymous information relating to an allegation against a staff member at SHCSS. The allegation was that this member of staff had sexually assaulted a child in the care of the provider. This member of staff is the brother of the director of the provider. Another brother acts as the Nominated Individual (NI) for the provider.

23. On 06 and 08 December 2025 Ofsted received further information and involved both the local authority designated officer (LADO) and the police.

24. The police re-opened an investigation which had started in February 2025 into similar allegations against the staff member.

25. Ofsted were initially content with the action which the Appellant took. This included notifying authorities of the allegation and on 10 December 2025 telling the Respondent the member of staff had been suspended.

26. On 9 January 2026 the Respondent received a safeguarding notification which related to a child who had moved into SHCSS and had made an allegation that a member of staff made her feel uncomfortable by “looking at [her] bum” and unpacking her underwear. The incident had taken place on 19 December 2025, and Ofsted were concerned that this had not been reported without delay as required by regulations.

27. During a monitoring visit conducted by the Respondent on 12 January 2026, the member of staff (staff member 1) subject to the police investigation was present and working in the office.

28. On 13 January 2026 Ofsted issued the suspension notice. Legal Framework

29. The statutory framework is set out in the Care Standards Act 2000 (‘ the Act ’). Section 14 A empowers the Respondent to take action suspending for a specified period the registration of a person in respect of an establishment or agency.

30. Section 20B sets out the urgent procedure for suspension and the contents of the notice informing the person of the suspension.

31. When deciding whether to suspend a registered provider’s registration, the test to be applied by the Respondent and this Tribunal, on an appeal, is set out at Section 20B(1)(b). It is: ‘the registration authority has reasonable cause to believe that unless it acts under this section any person will or may be exposed to the risk of harm’.

32. ‘Harm’ is defined as having the same definition as in section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989 : ‘ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another’ “development” means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development; “health” means physical or mental health; and “ill-treatment” includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.

33. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to be satisfied that there has been actual harm or even a likelihood of harm, but merely that a person may be exposed to a risk of harm as at the date of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal.

34. In the case of Ofsted v GM [2009] UKUT 89 (ACC), the Upper Tribunal considered a similar legislative provision in Regulation 9 of the Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) (Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 and held that, “Although the word “significant” does not appear …, both the general legislative context and the principle of proportionality suggest that the contemplated risk must be one of significant harm.”

35. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of Ofsted at the date of the hearing. The first issue to be addressed by the Tribunal is whether, as at the date of the hearing, the Tribunal has reasonable cause to believe that unless it acts under this section any person will or may be exposed to the risk of harm (the threshold test). If it concludes that it does, it must consider whether suspension is a necessary and proportionate response.

36. The immediate duration of the suspension is for twelve weeks. However, it may be extended thereafter.

37. Suspension may be lifted at any time if the circumstances described at section 20 B of the Act cease to exist. This imposes an ongoing duty on the Respondent to monitor whether the suspension remains necessary and proportionate.

38. At section 21 of the Act , an appeal may be brought to the First-tier Tribunal and on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall cease to have effect.

39. The burden of satisfying the Tribunal that the threshold test in Section 20 B is met rests with the Respondent. The standard of proof is ‘reasonable cause to believe’ and that falls somewhere between the balance of probabilities test and the ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ test. The belief is to be judged by Adil Ashraf Director 2nd March 2026 whether a reasonable person, assumed to know the law and possessed of the information would believe that a person may be exposed to a risk of harm.

40. In appeals against a suspension the Tribunal will make no finding of fact about the allegations which are the basis of the suspension. The positions of the parties

41. The Tribunal had the benefit of skeleton arguments from both parties. The Appellant’s case is that the suspension threshold is not met as Ofsted relies upon vague and historic allegations. She argues that Ofsted has not shown a risk of harm, just of an ongoing investigation which, because it relates to a previous allegation which was investigated at the time, does not justify her suspension without additional evidence. She argues that the notice of suspension does not detail any allegations against her. She argues that she took appropriate action in suspending the relevant staff member from working in supported accommodation on 05 December 2025. She argues that his subsequent work for a separate business in the office did not grant him access to children’s records and posed no risk of harm.

42. Regarding proportionality, the Appellant argues that Ofsted has not considered less intrusive measures such as conditions or restrictions upon registration or take into account the fact that the member of staff the subject of the police investigation has been suspended.

43. The Respondent, Ofsted, argues that the threshold for suspension is met, and that the suspension remains both necessary and proportionate on the basis of the concerns and information which it has received. Ofsted applies its policy which states that such a suspension as this allows it to complete its own investigations and to allows the completion of investigations by other agencies, into any potential risk of harm to children.

44. Ofsted was of the view that there were, at the time suspension, and remained at the date of hearing serious ongoing concerns regarding the alleged inappropriate conduct of a member of staff who is the brother of the director of the provider. This member of staff, referred to in the evidence as staff member 1, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a child (referred to as Child A) who was in the care of the provider. It is alleged that Mrs Nosegbe was aware of these allegations and concerns but failed to take appropriate action to safeguard children, including that she purported to suspend staff member 1 but in reality, he continued to access the premises of the provider, giving access to the records of children. It was also alleged that she was involved the destruction of evidence held on the phone of child A, the subject of a police investigation into the matter. The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons

45. We carefully considered all of the evidence in the appeal. This included the hearing bundle of 492 pages. And the late evidence admitted, referred to in this decision.

46. The Tribunal took into account the Respondent’s skeleton argument, and that submitted by the Appellant. The threshold for suspension

47. We consider that the test for suspension at Section 20 B has been met by the Respondent. The Respondent presented sufficient grounds for a reasonable belief that without the suspension children may be exposed to a risk of harm.

48. The risk of harm comes from the possibility of matters relating to safeguarding occurring at the service but not being reported by Mrs Nosegbe, who appears to still have access to the provider’s premises despite herself being suspended as a member of staff. The risk also comes from the possibility of staff whom she has suspended still having access to the premises and therefore information about children, if not the children themselves, having been removed. Should the suspension be lifted, the Appellant would be able to act as the manager of the provider again and there is a risk that children would be harmed, including the possibility of children being sexually harmed by staff.

49. In reaching this conclusion we were persuaded by the evidence of Mark Woodbridge, Social Care Regulatory Inspection Manager (‘SCRIM’) for Ofsted. Mr Woodbridge outlined the action, which we have summarised above, which the Appellant took in respect of the provider up to and on 13 January 2026. Whilst the provider in its skeleton argument argued that allegations against staff are an operational reality, and what is important is how they are handled, we agreed with his evidence that the provider had not dealt with allegations appropriately and that despite staff being dismissed or suspended there remained the possibility that children had been harmed. In respect of the four staff dismissed by the provider in 2025 there was no dispute that they had harmed children including by smoking cannabis with the children. It was not disputed that children had been subject to financial harm in 2025. Dismissal of staff could not undo the harm that was caused. Mr Woodbridge was concerned to ensure that the provider could prevent harm to children and keep them safe.

50. He emphasised that Deborah Holder, Social Care Compliance Inspector (SCCI) stated that after the suspension on 13 January she emailed Haroon Ashraf for confirmation of when Mrs Nosegbe had been suspended. He replied the following day (20 February) that Mrs Nosegbe had been suspended as an employee on 13 January. She asked by return why Mrs Nosegbe had made two notifications to CQC since that date. She received no satisfactory response to this, but was told that Mrs Nosegbe had been suspended. This confirmed for the panel the fact that Mrs Nosegbe was in reality still in a position at the provider and in a position therefore to affect its provision of care. The evidence given at the hearing by Mrs Nosegbe and Mr Adil Ashraf that Mrs Nosegbe was regularly attending the office and using her work laptop and email address, even after her “second” suspension on 23 February 2026, served to support this conclusion.

51. We were not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments that the matters giving rise to the regulatory action, specifically the allegation of sexual assault against staff member 1, were historic in nature and therefore did not warrant the suspension.

52. Ofsted accepted that the allegations were first made in February 2025. The Appellant was not criticised for her handling of that matter at that time, which included a prompt referral to the LADO. It was the case that further information came to light which led to the police re-opening their investigation and a subsequent investigation by the LADO which was ongoing at the time of the hearing. Additionally, further allegations had been raised which included the accusation that the Appellant had been involved in destroying evidence on a child’s mobile phone which was relevant the police investigation.

53. Mr Woodbridge stated that there was an ongoing investigation into the conduct of Mrs Nosegbe. Whilst the police had confirmed on 10 February 2026 that they were closing their investigation, they confirmed that this was because of non-cooperation by child A with their investigation (exhibit MW/5). They further confirmed that, “this does not mean there are not enough safeguarding concerns with the management of the home for other services to act upon.”

54. The statement of Deborah Holder dated 03 March 2026 indicated that Ofsted had received an allegation that Mrs Nosegbe had deleted a video from the phone of Child A which showed staff member 1 and which may have been evidence in any investigation into sexual assault by that person.

55. The statement confirmed that the LADO had commenced an investigation into Haroon Ashraf and there was an ongoing investigation into Mrs Nosegbe which included the allegation that she deleted evidence.

56. The statement of Deborah Holder asserted that on 9 January 2026 Ofsted received notification of an incident which took place on 19 December 2025 which was related to a child accusing a staff member of making her feel uncomfortable by unpacking her underwear and “looking at her bum”. Mrs Nosegbe in our conclusion had no good explanation for this delay in notifying Ofsted that the allegation had been made.

57. Susan Garner, social care regulatory inspector, stated that on a visit to the provider on 12 January 2026 Staff Member 1 was in the office and she was told by Mrs Nosegbe that he had a role in the office completing administration tasks. At the hearing Mrs Nosegbe denied that she had said this and agreed with Mr Adil Ashraf that he was visiting the office to collect worksheets allocating tasks in property management. Ms Garner stated that Mrs Nosegbe had changed her account during the visit, saying the member of staff was working for a CQC registered part of the business. We find Mrs Nosegbe’s evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable on this point and prefer the evidence of Ms Garner.

58. We reiterate that we make no finding of fact about these allegations. We are however satisfied that there is at least a credible allegation to be investigated. We were not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the suspension was unjustified because the allegations made against her had not yet been tested or proven. The purpose of suspension is in part to allow investigations to be completed.

59. We agree with Mr Woodbridge’s view that the threshold for suspension was met. The Appellant Mrs Nosegbe did not appear to accept that there had been delays in making notifications to Ofsted, or to recognise the seriousness of a suspended member of staff continuing to work from the premises of the provider. She was, we find, doing this herself. As the Registered Manager, she would be expected to understand the seriousness and implications of a suspension.

60. The initial decision of Ofsted was not to suspend Mrs Nosegbe as they believed there were no children at the service. On 12 January at their visit, they learned that there were two children and three young people living at the service and took the decision to suspend the next day because of a risk to them. We agree with Mr Woodbridge that even though there are presently no children residing with the service, the suspension remains a proportionate measure as there are investigations ongoing by the LADO which may lead to further regulatory action such as cancellation. Should the suspension be lifted, it may be possible for children to be readmitted to the service and Mrs Nosegbe to again manage the service.

61. The Tribunal was reassured to note that the Respondent continues to keep the suspension under review. Proportionality of the suspension

62. Having concluded that the suspension threshold had been met by the evidence presented by the Respondent, we have gone on to consider the proportionality of the suspension. We have taken into account that suspension is a draconian act which has a significant impact on the Appellant’s livelihood.

63. We considered that the imposition of a suspension was a proportionate response to the risk of harm outlined above. We took account of the obvious disruption this will cause to the children and young people who were placed at the provider, but considered that this was proportionate in light of the risk of harm to children of which we concluded there was evidence to support a reasonable belief, and which was being assessed by the LADO. Harm had come to children living with this provider through 2025. That in our assessment increased the likelihood of harm coming to children there in the future because despite individual members of staff being dismissed, the management and leadership of the provider remained in place and as noted in the 6 February 2026 monitoring visit to assess improvements made after compliance notices were issued, the leadership of the provider did not agree with the reasons for these notices and this made change more difficult.

64. We did not agree with the Appellant that the decision was disproportionate because the allegation against staff member 1 had been raised previously in 2025 with no further action taken by the police. It remained a serious matter and the further information received by Ofsted led to the police investigation being reopened. Although that had again closed, the LADO investigation which assessed broader matters including safeguarding concerns remained ongoing. A disciplinary process internal to the provider and administered by an independent person was also ongoing with a hearing scheduled for 17 March 2026.

65. We did not agree with the Appellant that the aims of Ofsted could be achieved, and the risk addressed, by lesser regulatory action. We are not able to direct that lesser or different action be taken. We must either confirm the suspension, or direct that it cease to have effect.

66. The risk of harm to children is of inappropriate contact from members of staff and those members of staff who should not be in contact with children, having access to them. This risk of harm is so serious that it makes suspension a proportionate response and outweighs the concerns outlined above and relied upon by the Appellant. This is the first 12-week suspension period. At this point the police investigation has concluded, and further LADO investigations are awaited. After these have been completed Ofsted will assess the suitability of the Appellant’s registration as a manager in light of the information provided. We concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate for the suspension to continue whilst this process is completed. From the evidence of Mr Woodbridge, Ms Holder and Ms Garner, Ofsted appear to have acted swiftly and there is no undue delay which would make the suspension disproportionate. Decision :

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Respondent’s decision of 13 January 2026 to suspend the Appellant’s registration is confirmed. Judge GPB Brandon Care Standards & Primary Health Lists Tribunal First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date Issued: 19 March 2026