Karl Schumacher v Ofsted

First-tier Tribunal Care Standards The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008 NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00259 (HESC) 2025-01542. EY Hearing held at Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre on 10 – 13 February 2026 Before Tribunal Judge Scott Trueman Specialist Member S Billington Specialist Member M Cann Between: Mr Karl Schumacher -v- Ofsted DECISION Appellant Respondent 1. 2. The Appeal This appeal is brought by Mr Karl Schumacher (in this decision referred to as the Appellant or Mr Schumacher) against the decision of Ofsted (‘the Respondent’) by notice of decision dated 18 June 2025 to refuse to register him as the Registered Manager of Heartfilled House, a children’s home formerly located at 69 Hartfield Crescent, Birmingham B27 7QE, pursuant to section 13 Care Standards Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). The appeal is brought under section 21 of the 2000 Act. Attendance The Appellant was represented by his wife, Mrs Shan Schumacher, acting as lay representative. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. The Respondent was represented by Ms Rachel Birks, Solicitor, instructed by Ms Catriona 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Thompson, both of Ward Hadaway solicitors. The Respondent’s witnesses were: on day 1, Mr James Tallis, social care compliance inspector; and Ms Marianne Grandfield, social care regulatory inspector; on day 2 in addition to Ms Grandfield, Ms Laura Norcop, social care regulatory inspector and Mr Joseph Matkar-Cox, social care regulatory inspection manager; on day 3, Mr Matkar-Cox. The Tribunal heard submissions for the remainder of day 3, the Appellant calling no live oral evidence, and the Tribunal deliberated on day 4. At the outset of day 1 of the hearing, Mrs Schumacher told us that she did not think that Mr Schumacher was going to attend the hearing as he was too unwell. Mrs Schumacher set out Mr Schumacher’s GPs views. She agreed to obtain medical evidence in support of this position, and to bring this on day 2. Medical evidence in the form of a fit note was presented on day 2 and a further letter from Mr Schumacher’s GP was presented on day 3. These indicated that Mr Schumacher was not well enough to attend the hearing. Having looked at the medical evidence submitted by Mrs Schumacher on behalf of her husband during the hearing, we accept that he was not able physically to attend and give evidence. But Mrs Schumacher knew this as long ago as 22 January 2026, when she told the Tribunal during a Telephone Case Management Conference (TCMH) that Mr Schumacher was unlikely to attend (see bundle B, page 1004-1005). Mrs Schumacher was asked directly by the Judge at the start of the substantive hearing whether she wished to proceed in her husband’s absence, and in the absence of legal representation. Mrs Schumacher was warned that proceeding without Mr Schumacher would inevitably lead to the Tribunal being able to give less weight to his evidence overall because it would not be tested by cross-examination. Mrs Schumacher elected to proceed with the hearing in full knowledge of these issues and in the absence of legal advice. She said she wanted the matter dealt with. At no point was a postponement of the hearing sought. In accepting Mrs Schumacher’s decision on these issues, we took account of the fact that Mrs Schumacher has represented her husband in Tribunals before; that she told us she had a law degree; and that she said she wanted to proceed, despite the warnings the Tribunal gave her. Judge Natalie Amey-Smith attended the hearing as an observer on day 1 of the hearing. Mr Samuel Street attended the hearing as an observer on day 2 of the hearing. Neither took any part in the decision- making process of the Tribunal. Restricted reporting order The Tribunal makes a restricted reporting Order under rule 14(1) (a) and (b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (as amended) (“the Tribunal Rules”) prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any document or matter in this appeal likely to lead members of the public to identify any child or young person who has been a resident at, or connected to, any of the children’s homes referred to in these proceedings, and prohibiting the disclosure of any material relating to 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. the Appellant’s own health. This is to ensure the protection of the relevant individual’s private lives. Background The Respondent is the statutory regulator of providers of residential Children’s Homes under the Care Act 2000. That statutory scheme, and regulations made under it, provide for the application for registration by intended providers to carry on or manage an establishment or agency in the sector. It is an offence to carry on such an establishment or agency without being registered. Under the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 20151, made under section 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000, a registered provider of such homes must appoint a Manager, if they are (broadly) a company or partnership or do not intend to be in day – to -day charge of the home. That Manager must also be registered under the Act and must meet statutory requirements under the Regulations. Such a company or partnership must also appoint a Responsible Individual who is a director, manager, secretary of other officer holder of the registered provider who is nominated by the organisation for the purpose of supervising the management of the home on behalf of the organisation. Mr Karl Schumacher has been a professional working in residential childcare since 2009. In 2024, he accepted a role with Guardian Homes (Midlands) Limited (“Guardian Homes”), with the intention that he would become Registered Manager of Heartfilled House, a children’s home which provided care and accommodation for up to three children with social and emotional difficulties, of which Guardian Homes was the owner. Guardian Homes asked Mr Schumacher to apply for registration and he duly submitted an application to be Registered Manager of Heartfilled House on 13 January 2025. Mr Schumacher’s application to become Registered Manager was subsequently refused on 18 June 2025. It is against that refusal that he now brings this appeal to the First Tier Tribunal under s.21 Care Standards Act 2000. Mr Schumacher’s employment history From 2009, Mr Schumacher worked initially for a large part of the time for Blue Mountain Homes, working his way up to being a Registered Manager for a Children’s Home. In 2019, he was approached by his then employer and asked to set up a new Children's Home, Oaklands. He was registered as Registered Manager of this home in October 2020 and he managed this until March 2022. He left that employment and subsequently won an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal. In August 2022, after what he described as a period of reflection following the very sad passing of his sister, he took a further role as a deputy Registered Manager with Olive Tree Residential (“Olive Tree”). But not long after his arrival, the existing Registered Manager was removed, and Mr Schumacher found himself acting Registered Manager for two homes, Piano Barn and Poplar’s Farm. He applied for registration as Registered Manager for both 1 SI 2015 No 541. 13. 14. 15. 16. homes, applying for Piano Barn in January 2023, and for Poplar’s Barn in April. Neither application progressed to determination before Mr Schumacher left the employer, and the applications were subsequently withdrawn. In September 2023, Mr Schumacher accepted a role as Operations Manager for Adecyn Homes, in which capacity he was involved in the leadership and management of 5 registered Children’s Homes, though he was not the Responsible Individual or Registered Manager for any of them. In July 2024, following the departure of the incumbent Responsible Individual, Mr Jowaine Blake, a new Responsible Individual, Ms Ashleen Thompson, began working with the Appellant at Adecyn Homes. In due course, Mr Schumacher raised concerns with Ofsted about Ms Thompson. Mr Schumacher left Adecyn Homes in September 2024, citing a series of leadership and management failures, and commenced employment with Guardian Homes in November 2024. Mr Schumacher’s employment with Guardian Homes was terminated at the end of October 2025. The application to be Registered Manager of Heartfilled House To understand more of the background to this appeal it is necessary to understand a little of what happened to Guardian Homes. Heartfilled House home was inspected by the Respondent on 29 October 2024 and had been subject to a notice suspending its registration and to a notice of proposal to cancel its registration. These decisions were said to be due to significant shortfalls identified in inspection, particularly with respect to safeguarding. The home responded to the notice of proposal with representations on 9 December 2024, and these included that Mr Schumacher had been appointed as manager of Heartfilled House with the intention he should be Registered Manager, and that they had also appointed a new Responsible Individual. The Respondent, it is said, decided to assess the suitability and fitness of the new proposed Responsible Individual and Responsible Manager before responding to Guardian Homes’ representations. Following his application for registration in January 2025, Mr Schumacher attended an interview with the Respondent at their office in Birmingham on 15 April 2025 and was interviewed by Social Care Compliance Inspectors Marianne Grandfield, the lead inspector, and by James Tallis who asked some questions but primarily took a note. This interview was called a ‘fit person’s interview’ (FPI) and was part of the process for the Respondent determining whether a person met the requirements of the Regulations for registration as a Responsible Manager. There was a wider process for application including completion of a fit person’s questionnaire and the submission of references. As part of this process, the Respondent considered Mr Schumacher’s regulatory history with Ofsted and in the sector. On 1 May 2025, the Respondent wrote to Mr Schumacher indicating in a Notice of Proposal that it was, subject to representations received from him, minded to refuse his registration as Registered Manager for reasons set out in that letter. Mr Schumacher submitted representations at the end of May 2025, and the Respondent considered these at an internal meeting on 10 June. The Respondent replied on 18 June 2025, with a notice of decision confirming 17. 18. 19. refusal to register Mr Schumacher on the basis of not meeting the requirements of regulation 28 of the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 2015. On 12 November 2025, Guardian Homes confirmed that it was withdrawing its appeal against cancellation of their registration and an order confirming the withdrawal was made by the Tribunal on 17 November 2025. As a result, Heartfilled House ceased to be a registered children’s home. Issues in the Appeal The parties had identified 5 separate key issues in the Scott Schedule which related to Mr Schumacher’s fitness as a manager under regulation 28 of the 2015 Regulations They were split into broadly 5 categories: - a. b. c. d. e. The extent to which Mr Schumacher has a history of being involved in sub-standard quality care to children in children’s homes; Concerns about the responses and evidence provided by Mr Schumacher in his fit person’s interview (FPI) on 15 April 2025 which were said to go to issue of his integrity and good character, and to his experience, qualifications and skills to manage children’s homes; The quality of the Operational plan submitted, which was said to contain significant omissions; The dismissal of the Appellant from his position with Guardian Homes and his failure to notify the Respondent of this; and The lack of any Registered Manager position for Mr Schumacher who is now neither an employee of Guardian Homes nor for whom there is a role at Heartfilled House which is no longer operating. In relation to the second part of the fourth issue, we queried with the Respondent how it could be that Mr Schumacher was under any duty to notify them of his dismissal by Guardian Homes at the end of October 2025 when his application had been determined by the Respondent on 18 June 2025. Ms Birks initially suggested that the obligation to inform the Respondent of his employment status continued pending the outcome of any appeal. But we did not consider that submission to be sustainable. Having regard to the terms of regulation 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (Registration) Regulations 2010 2, set out below, this obligation cannot have continued beyond 18 June 2025. We also note that Ms Ledder refused to undertake a reconsideration of the Ofsted decision in her email of 18 July 2025 to Mr Schumacher on the basis that the ‘application has now been determined.’ In our view, Ofsted cannot maintain both on the one hand that the matter is determined but also say that Mr Schumacher’s obligations continue when this is plainly contrary to the wording of regulation 5. There is nothing in those Registration Regulations, or in the wider Children’s Home Regulations that we were referred to that indicates that any obligation to update information survives the determination of the initial application. Rightly, in our view, Ofsted agreed to drop this part of 2 SI 2010 No. 2130 as amended. 20. 21. 22. its response to the appeal, and we do not therefore deal any further with this issue. In his witness evidence and in the skeleton argument for the appeal, the Appellant took the point that the initial notice of proposal had not been served upon him correctly in accordance with section 37 Care Standards Act 2000. Various submissions were made in those documents about the impact that the indicated irregular service of the document had had on the Appellant. However, at the outset of this hearing, we declined to reconsider that issue. In our view, this issue had been fully ventilated before the Tribunal that sat on 30 September 2025, and was one of the issues directly raised by the Appellant in his application to bar the Respondent from taking any further part in the appeal. Judge Edwards’ decision of 7 October sets out in paragraphs 59 to 62 (bundle A, pages 69-70) carefully explained reasons why the s.37 point did not succeed. We saw no reason to reopen that issue again, and the point was, if anything, put beyond doubt by the submission of Mr Matkar-Cox’s witness statement of 26 January 2026 which demonstrated, we accept, that Mr Schumacher requested service by email at his work email address. Preliminary Issues Late Evidence On 30 January 2026, Mrs Schumacher made two applications in these proceedings, one a request to submit late evidence, the other a request for further disclosure which we considered at the start of the hearing. In terms of the late evidence request, Mrs Schumacher asked us to admit a third witness statement from Mr Schumacher and initially a video (not provided to us) which she said showed a child being subjected to assault in a home run by Adecyn Homes. We agreed to admit the statement, though we required it to be supported by a signed statement of truth before we would admit it, and we declined to accept the video. In our view, the relevance of such distressing evidence to the issue of Mr Schumacher’s own fitness as a Registered Manager was unclear. 23. We were also told that there were about 46 other documents sent in a zip file which the Appellant was also asking us to consider admitting as late evidence. We had not seen these prior to the hearing, and we were told only at the hearing what their relevance was. Ms Birks made the point that they were not exhibited to any statement and the relevance of them was unclear. As Mrs Schumacher told us that they concerned mainly the point about whether Mr Schumacher should have informed the Respondent of his dismissal by Guardian Homes, we declined to read them initially whilst the Respondent reconsidered its position on whether it wished to rely on this in any event. As Ms Birks helpfully indicated after lunch on day 1 that she did not intend to rely on this fact, Mrs Schumacher agreed to refine the documents she was asking us to consider. On day 2 of the hearing, Mrs Schumacher initially asked us to consider admitting 16 additional documents, but on discussion, it was ascertained that these documents related to the termination of Mr Schumacher’s employment with Guardian Homes primarily. It was also agreed however that the Scott schedule did not rely on Mr Schumacher’s time at Guardian Homes as evidence of his fitness, other than in relation to an allegation of threats made to a director of the company. In the end, Mrs 24. 25. 26. Schumacher withdrew the application to submit these documents, and instead sought to submit one document which was the email from the director of Guardian Homes, Kirith Klair, dismissing Mr Schumacher from the company. This document was already in the bundle, however, so it was not necessary to readmit it. On disclosure, having heard from the parties, we ordered disclosure of the Case Review document from 7 May 2025 and also the conflict report of Ms Ann Pritchard, completed in August 2025. They were provided to us and Mrs Schumacher on the same day. We did not order the disclosure of further case review notes as requested by Mrs Schumacher because she said she wanted any case review involving Mr Nurul Kabir on the basis that there might be additional conflicts of interest and in our view, this was an entirely new issue, not raised before in the appeal and the relevance of which was unclear. We also considered the request to be a fishing exercise, based on the refusal of the Respondent to disclose material to the Appellant under a Subject Access Request on an earlier occasion. We also declined to order the disclosure of an email referred to in the statement of Ms Norcop, referred to at paragraph 23, as in our view it was right to accept the assertion of the solicitor for the Respondent that the substance of that email was already contained in the witness statement, it was made by an officer of the Respondent and supported by a statement of truth, and again the request came very late in the day without sufficient explanation of why this was necessary. The taking of evidence at the hearing At the hearing, the Tribunal indicated that the various witness statements made in the proceedings should, in respect of the professional witnesses, stand as their primary evidence in chief and that oral evidence in chief should be confined to additional or corrected material. Evidence from these witnesses therefore focused on cross-examination. Recognising that Mrs Schumacher was a lay representative, and that Mr Schumacher was a litigant in person, the Tribunal allowed Mrs Schumacher generous amounts of time from the time estimate for each witness in which to conduct cross-examination. In all, Mrs Schumacher took 1 hour with Mr Tallis; 4 hours with Ms Grandfield; just over an hour with Ms Norcop and about 4 hours 15 minutes with Mr Matkar-Cox. We assisted Mrs Schumacher at times in the framing of her questions, but we did not restrict the subject areas to which she could refer, though at times the Tribunal did move Mrs Schumacher on when she began to cover the same ground again. Given the amount of time set aside for each witness, Mrs Schumacher took the vast majority of the time available, and we are satisfied that she was given every opportunity to ask such questions as she wished. The Tribunal also occasionally re-directed Mrs Schumacher when she strayed into submissions, but we indicated that these were matters to which she could refer at the end of the hearing. 27. During the course of cross-examination in the hearing, and in a discussion about the disclosure of meta-data, Mrs Schumacher considered it appropriate to suggest that one of the Ofsted inspectors had been ‘untruthful under oath’. The clear suggestion was that an (identified) discrepancy between prior written evidence and that individual’s oral evidence was deliberate. The Tribunal Judge stopped the hearing at this point, and gave Mrs Schumacher fair warning that an allegation of perjury, to which this amounted, was a very serious charge, which would require very serious evidence in support. In our view, no such evidence could possibly be identified. We took a short break to allow Mrs Schumacher to reflect on her comments. We appreciated that Mrs Schumacher was under a great deal of pressure in the hearing, and was conducting the case on her own. Nevertheless, we indicated that we could not allow unsupported and serious allegations to be made in this manner. As Mrs Schumacher became distressed, we took a further break and allowed her time to compose herself. The allegation was subsequently withdrawn, and we indicated that we would consider the matter closed, without implication for either side. Legal Framework 28. The Care Standards Act 2000 so far as relevant provides as follows:- 11 Requirement to register. (1) Any person who carries on or manages an establishment or agency of any description without being registered under this Part in respect of it (as an establishment or, as the case may be, agency of that description) shall be guilty of an offence… 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.” 21.— Appeals to the Tribunal. (1) An appeal against– (a) a decision of the registration authority under this Part; (b) … ] shall lie to the Tribunal. (2) No appeal against a decision or order may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision or order. … (3) On an appeal against a decision of the registration authority, other than a decision to which a notice under section 20B relates, the Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect. 29. The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 (“the 2015 Regulations”) made under s.22 of the Act, so far as relevant, provide as follows:- 28.— Fitness of manager (1) A person may only manage a children's home if— (a) the person is of integrity and good character; (b) having regard to the size of the home, its statement of purpose, and the number and needs (including any needs arising from any disability) of the children— (i) the person has the appropriate experience, qualification and skills to manage the home effectively and lead the care of children; and (ii) the person is physically and mentally fit to manage the home; and (c) full and satisfactory information is available in relation to the person in respect of each of the matters in Schedule 2. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b)(i), a person has the appropriate experience and qualification if the person has— (a) within the last 5 years, worked for at least 2 years in a position relevant to the residential care of children; (b) worked for at least one year in a role requiring the supervision and management of staff working in a care role; and (c) by the relevant date, attained— (i) the Level 5 Diploma in Leadership and Management for Residential Childcare (England) (“the Level 5 Diploma”); or (ii) a qualification which the registered provider considers to be equivalent to the Level 5 Diploma. (3) …. Schedule 2 Information required in respect of persons seeking to carry on, manage or work at a children's home 1. Proof of identity including a recent photograph. 2. Either— (a) where the position falls within regulation 5A of the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, an enhanced criminal record certificate issued under section 113B of the Police Act 1997 which includes, where applicable, suitability information relating to— (i) children (within the meaning of section 113BA(2) of the Police Act 1997); (ii) vulnerable adults (within the meaning of section 113BB(2) of the Police Act1997; or (iii) in any other case, a criminal record certificate issued under section 113A of the Police Act 1997. 3. most recent employer, if any. 4. children or vulnerable adults, verification so far as reasonably practicable of the If a person has previously worked in a position involving work with Two written references, including a reference from the person's Documentary evidence of any qualifications which the person reason why the employment or position ended. 5. considers relevant for the position. 6. A full employment history, together with a satisfactory explanation of any gaps in employment, in writing. 30. The Care Standards Act 2000 (Registration) Regulations 20103 so far as relevant provide as follows:- 4. Interview The responsible person shall, if [Ofsted] so requests, attend an interview for the purpose of enabling the Chief Inspector to determine whether the applicant is fit to carry on or manage the establishment, agency, holiday scheme for disabled children or supported accommodation undertaking in respect of which the applicant seeks to be registered. 5. Notice of changes The applicant shall give notice to the CI of any changes to the information or documents provided under this Part which occur after the application for registration is made and before it is determined. 31. The Children Act 1989 so far as relevant provides as follows: 65.— Persons disqualified from carrying on, or being employed in, children's homes. (A1) A person (“P”) who is disqualified (under section 68)4 from fostering a child privately must not carry on, or be otherwise concerned in the management of, or have any financial interest in, a children's home in England unless— (a) P has, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which P became aware of P's disqualification, disclosed to the appropriate authority the fact that P is so disqualified, and (b) P has obtained the appropriate authority's written consent (A2) A person (“E”) must not employ a person (“P”) who is so disqualified in a children's home in England unless— (a) E has, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which E became aware of P's disqualification, disclosed to the appropriate authority the fact that P is so disqualified, and (b) E has obtained the appropriate authority's written consent. 32. The Appellant’s case The Appellant set out his case in a position statement and in an updated skeleton argument which the Tribunal considered in detail. We also had the benefit of Mrs Schumacher’s oral submissions at the 3 SI 2010 No 2130 4 A person who has been refused registration as a Registered Manager of a Children’s Home under s.13 of the Care Standards Act 2000 is disqualified from private fostering by the Disqualification from Caring for Children (England) Regulations 2002, SI 2002 No. 635, regulation 2(7)(a). close of the hearing. 33. The Appellant contends that the process for determining his fitness to be a Registered Manager was not conducted fairly. In particular, he says that the interview process and consideration of his employment history, and hence consideration of his experience, skill and qualification for managing a home, were assessed initially by someone with actual or apparent bias, who was a friend of someone about whom he had raised concerns. He says the FPI note was not reflective of the interview and it was inaccurate in content. 34. Mr Schumacher says that initial assessment in effect tainted the rest of the process. Reference is made in various documents to other inspectors in Ofsted whom the Appellant says have also been involved in previous complaints processes with him. He says also that Ofsted have not given him credit for the positive aspects of his management and leadership of children’s homes and he says that the regulator has ‘cherry-picked’ the worst parts of his employment history to paint a picture of sub-standard care that is not balanced or reflective of the truth. He says that Ofsted say there is no evidence of him challenging poor practice at his various employments- Mr Schumacher submitted information and paperwork which he says is indicative of the fact that he did challenge such performance when appropriate. Mr Schumacher says that overall the process was unfair and the decision reached was disproportionate. It is also said that he was subjected to detriment by virtue of being a whistleblower. 35. The Respondent’s case The Respondent’s case was that Mr Schumacher had a history of providing substandard quality care to children, spanning a period from about 2021 to 2024, and that the Respondent had serious concerns about this, about the responses Mr Schumacher gave during his fit person’s interview and that these issues went to both his integrity and to his experience, qualifications and skills, under regulation 28 of the 2015 Regulations. They consider that the Appellant is not suitable for registration, and that he had not discharged the burden of proof that lies on him to demonstrate that as part of this appeal either. Evidence 36. The Tribunal took oral evidence. What follows is a summary of the key elements of that evidence. It does not purport to be a verbatim record of the evidence given; and key evidence on which the Tribunal relied is also referred to during the Tribunal’s later findings with reasons. 37. Mr Tallis gave evidence of the notes that he had taken and the manner in which he had taken them. He confirmed that he considered them to be accurate. He did not suggest it was a verbatim note. He did not think the notes had been tampered with or changed since he had written them. He said that he considered Mr Schumacher’s answers at the FPI to be concerning, and that he had made some strange admissions. He said Mr Schumacher had been given opportunities to take breaks but had not taken them. He said Mr Schumacher had attended the FPI with a folder of documents but no reference had been made to them: it was not Ofsted’s practice to look at such materials in the FPI. 38. He said he was aware that Ms Thompson was the RI Adecyn Homes group. He said that concerns about that provider had been discussed but not Ms Thompson directly. He accepted that the RI held accountability for the provider. He said that he was aware that there were concerns raised by Mr Schumacher concerning his leaving of the organisation. He thought he was probably aware of the Regulation 40 notices raised by Ms Thompson. Mr Tallis said he had not previously been aware of any link between Ms Grandfield and Ms Thompson. 39. Mr Tallis said that the comment around ‘shiny audits’ which were compiled for external viewing was captured pretty much as it was said. He said the comment was so surprising this was why he had intervened himself to ask for clarification. He said he was very concerned that Mr Schumacher appeared to be admitting that he had knowingly hidden shortfalls from the regulator. He said that the implications of the inspection had been explained at the start- the inspectors did not spell these out to Mr Schumacher again. He said that he felt the interview was balanced and not over-focused on any one area to any extent. He said the first part of the interview had discussed concerns about previous experience that Ms Grandfield had identified in her planning for the interview, and that prior history was important’ he said the second section concerned more general suitability questions. 40. Ms Grandfield told the Tribunal that she had become the allocated inspector on 28 February 2025 when the previous inspector had left Ofsted. Ms Grandfield accepted that she had known prior to becoming allocated inspector that Mr Schumacher had worked for Ms Thompson, though she could not recall the exact date. She said the allocated inspector for Adecyn Homes, Sarah Berry, had told her that Ms Thompson had confirmed that she knew Ms Grandfield. She said she was aware that Ms Thompson was Mr Schumacher’s line manager. Ms Grandfield said that she was undertaking an assessment of Mr Schumacher however and not of Ms Thompson and did not consider this was problematic. She said that she had declared on joining Ofsted that she knew Ms Thompson who also worked in the sector- though she said she knew many people because she had worked in the area for a long time and it was a relatively small sector. She confirmed that Ms Thompson had been a bridesmaid at her wedding and that she had stood in for a godparent at the christening of one of Ms Thompson’s children. She said that she had raised her knowledge of Ms Thompson with Ms McMillan at the time before she became allocated inspector and said that Ms McMillan felt there was no conflict because Ms Grandfield did not know her in a professional capacity and they had never worked in the same place. She said she had relied on that assessment. 41. Ms Grandfield said that she had prepared for the FPI using information on Ofsted’s own database and had been through the homes he had worked at. She had looked at his fit person questionnaire responses, his references, health declaration and other information. She had also received some additional information from Melissa McMillan, her Regulatory Inspection Manager who had also looked at her proposed questions. Ms Grandfield said that she had considered any home where he was either one of the regulated individuals or where he had had a role of leadership and management. She said that this had included his time at Adecyn Homes because he had said explicitly that he was responsible for regulatory compliance and undertook significant audits of the homes in the group. Ms Grandfield said that she was aware of some of the audits Mr Schumacher had completed but had not considered these explicitly as part of the preparation for the interview. She said she had looked more at the inspection history and evidence. She said that she as aware that Mr Schumacher’s audits had identified some shortfalls in the past, but that she did not consider that action had been taken around these to improve staff practice or child protection. She said that as a result they lacked practical effectiveness. 42. Ms Grandfield said that Mr Schumacher had indicated that he completed ‘shiny’ audits in the interview, indicating that he had one audit for the owners and another for external consumption. She said that as a result of that comment she had asked if he challenged such practices and that Mr Schumacher had replied that he did as he was told. She said that whatever the position might be as to whether Mr Schumacher’s submitted audits did in fact identify shortfalls, this didn’t detract from the fact that this was what he had said in the interview. Ms Grandfield said that she had asked a lot of questions around Mr Schumacher’s suitability and said this was reasonable because of the identified shortfalls in his leadership and management. Ms Grandfield said that they did not consider the documents in Mr Schumacher’s file at the time of the FPI but they would have been considered the following week at the monitoring visit to Guardian Homes had he attended, as they expected he would. 43. Ms Grandfield said that when Mr Schumacher was Registered Manager at Blue Mountain Homes, at the Oaklands home, he had not been able to demonstrate good outcomes for children or consistency of good delivery. She said he had not demonstrated that he had learned lessons from that experience. This had resulted in higher enforcement actions. She said she had not considered the period after he left. She said that she had tried to verify the reference provided by Blue Mountain which had referred to some concerns but had been unable to do so. She denied that she had spoken to the referee. She said that whilst she was aware he had won an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal this did not remove the concerns raised in inspections. 44. Ms Grandfield she had verified the Adecyn Homes reference and the Director had told her that the inspection reports spoke for themselves. The Director had shared that she had made a Regulation 40 notification. She said these had been reviewed and there were 3. The notifications did not record who had made them. She accepted that she was aware of the allegations of discrimination, bullying and intimidation but said she did not know these were against Ms Thompson. 45. Ms Norcop’s evidence was that she had taken over as allocated inspector for Mr Schumacher. She said that when she had started the role she had understood that she would need to respond to Mr Schumacher’s representations. She said that she did not inform Mr Schumacher that she was the new inspector because the Notice of Proposal had already been sent to him and it wasn’t Ofsted’s practice to contact people again in those circumstances. She said that she had contacted Guardian Homes, however, because she needed to undertake a monitoring visit, and she said that had Mr Schumacher been present at that she would have met him there. She confirmed that she had been an allocated inspector to monitor Oaklands home after Mr Schumacher had left but said she had told Mr Matkar-Cox about this. She said that she had focused in her assessment only on the time he was there and not what had happened subsequently, which would not be fair to him. She said that she had no prior knowledge of Mr Schumacher himself however and had never worked with him. 46. Ms Norcop said that she and Mr Matkar-Cox had reviewed the 9 folders of material that they had received in addition to the written representations received from Mr Schumacher and they had read them and compared the information contained in it to the points made in the notice of proposal and used this comparison as part of their decision making. She said that they had reviewed Mr Schumacher’s answers to the FPI at the same time. She said that they had also considered the points he had made about a conflict of interest with Ms Grandfield and considered the FPI and its questions and answers in the light of the points he made. Ms Norcop said that the questions appeared to be normal for an FPI and were proportionate to the issues raised. She said that they had considered a range of topics and that they had given Mr Schumacher chance to reflect on his learning and she did not think that there was any undue focus in them. She accepted that issues from 2016 had been discussed but said that this would always be raised in an interview of this sort, and said they considered that they had been raised sensitively. 47. 48. She said there was no evidence that any conflict had influenced how the interview was planning and conducted. Ms Norcop accepted that she had relied on the evidence initially collected by Ms Grandfield. She said that whilst she was aware he had raised a conflict about the conduct of the FPI, she was not aware that at the time of his representations he had disputed the content of the discussion. She said she and Mr Matkar-Cox had considered whether Mr Schumacher had had a chance to demonstrate his learning from his previous experience as part of the discussion. In relation to the Olive tree homes, Ms Norcop said that Mr Schumacher was in post when Piano Barn had received an inadequate rating. She said that Ofsted’s system indicated the date when he had applied to become Registered Manager and the dates when he withdrew the applications. She said that she was aware that the July 2023 report into Piano Barn was never published because the home closed, but she said that Mr Schumacher was in post at the time of the inspection in July and had been present at the inspection, even though he was on annual leave when the team returned to take additional evidence some 5 days later. Ms Norcop said that the resulting inadequate judgement was not simply as a result of an incident that occurred between the dates of the inspection visits (she was not sure what this incident was said to be) but said the judgement reflected the home’s performance across the period from the last inspection and took into account everything that had occurred in that time. She said that Mr Schumacher was in a leadership role at the time and was applying to be Registered Manager of these homes. She noted that he withdrew his applications only after the Piano Barn inspection. 49. Ms Norcop accepted that the notice of proposal had not referred to the inadequate rating received by Piano Barn in July 2023, whereas the notice of decision did. She said this arose from the fact of Mr Schumacher’s own representations in May, when he had relied strongly on a trajectory of improvement at Piano Barn including the progress made from its Inadequate rating in November 2022, to its Good rating in March 2023. As he had not mentioned that it had also subsequently been rated Inadequate again, whilst he was still in post, Ofsted considered this to be important context. 50. As for Poplar’s Farm, Ms Norcop said that he had indicated that he was stepping down from oversight of the Piano Barn home to focus on Poplar’s Farm and this felt appropriate. She accepted that the leadership and management rating had improved from inadequate in December 2022, prior to Mr Schumacher’s arrival to simply requires improvement by June 2023 but she did not accept that this could really be said to be progress. She said it was not evidence that the home was capable of giving care for children that would be good, even if it was a step in the right direction. She accepted that her witness statement had not referenced the March 2023 assurance visit when it was said that no serious or widespread concerns were identified but said she had focused on the key issues only. It had been considered along with his other representations however. 51. Ms Norcop’s evidence also covered the time that Mr Schumacher spent working for Adecyn Homes. Ms Norcop said that in assessing Mr Schumacher’s time as Operations Manager they had looked at wider leadership issues. She noted that Mr Schumacher had said he was responsible for regulatory compliance and so they had considered these issues for the time he was an employee. She said that they had considered what day to day impact he had at the homes and the roles of others. She said that the team had accepted that the shortfalls at Adecyn Homes did not rest solely with him but noted that whilst he had undertaken audits and identified shortfalls, these audits had been ineffective in raising standards or ensuring consistency of care. She accepted that she was aware of subsequent developments at Adecyn Homes after Mr Schumacher left but said that she did not directly consider these issues because they were not relevant if they related to a time he was not in post. She said they had fully considered all of the points he had made however about his time there and the responsibilities, and failings of others. 52. She said that two homes had been judged good- Dimsdale and Oak. She noted that the first had been inspected after Mr Schumacher had been in post for just a few days, and the other had been judged good in November 2023 when Mr Schumacher had been in post for 2 months but when the home had no children present, and none additionally moved into the home during the time Mr Schumacher was an employee. She said that whilst these facts had been taken into account, looking at the regulatory outcomes as a whole, there appeared to be a pattern of decline across the service during his time as Operations Manager, and whilst this was not all or solely attributable to Mr Schumacher, they had taken account of the fact that he was in charge of regulatory compliance. Ms Norcop said that she was aware that when he left Adecyn Homes he had clearly left on difficult terms, but said that they focused more on the inspection outcomes and his impact on the outcomes for children. She said that she was aware that Mr Schumacher had raised concerns with Ms Grandfield about Adecyn Homes and these had been looked at. 53. Mr Matkar-Cox confirmed that he was the Regulatory Inspection Manager who had made the decision in this case relating to Mr Schumacher. He accepted that Mr Schumacher had raised the issue of potential conflict in relation to Ms Grandfield on 6 May and that it as wrong to suggest he had delayed in raising this. That was an inaccuracy. 54. Mr Matkar-Cox said that Ms Pritchard had been asked to do a review of the potential conflict of interest in late July and he had spoken to her briefly as part of this a few days later. He said the aim of the review was to establish the relationship between Ms Grandfield and Ms Thompson and whether this impacted the actions Ms Grandfield had taken, and how she had managed this. He accepted that Ms Grandfield had been removed as allocated inspector but denied this suggested they had accepted there was a conflict. He said this seemed appropriate in the circumstances in light of the issue Mr Schumacher had raised. He said he did not consider that there was evidence of actual or apparent bias. 55. Mr Matkar-Cox said he had reviewed the FPI with Ms Norcop as part of the overall consideration of Mr Schumacher’s representations. He said that he considered the review that he had conducted was sound, proportionate and appropriate. He did not accept that he had any conflict of interest or that the FPI was affected by the fact Ms Grandfield had conducted it. He said the decision to refuse registration was based on a wide variety of issues and concerns. This included the FPI. He gave similar evidence to Ms Grandfield in relation to the specific inspections relating to the various homes at which Mr Schumacher had worked. 56. He said that the process had been fair because Mr Schumacher had been given opportunity in the FPI to reflect on all the previous roles he had worked in and he said he had reconsidered that issue again specifically when Mr Schumacher raised it as an issue. He was clear in his view he said that he was given a fair and impartial opportunity to reflect on past experience and to demonstrate how he met the requirements of the regulations. He said he had confirmed with Ms Grandfield and Mr Tallis that the FPI notes were accurate but that they had not otherwise been involved at all in the final decision making process. He said he had not spoken directly to Mr Schumacher about the conflict of interest allegation but he said his colleague Ms Russell had done so on 7 May to confirm Ofsted’s view that there was no conflict. He said that in reaching his decision on registration he had looked at all of the material including Ofsted’s internal ‘toolkit’ that had been prepared for the application. He said he had looked not only at the inspection reports but at some of the underlying toolkits for some of the earlier inspections as he wanted to get a sense of some of the shortfalls that had previously been identified. He could not recall specifically which ones he had looked at. The Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons 57. 58. General In one sense, the decision that the Tribunal has to reach in this case is a simple one: is Mr Karl Schmacher ‘fit’ to be a Registered Manager of Heartfilled House? And by extension, therefore, fit to be Registered Manager of many other children’s homes too? More specifically, does Mr Schumacher meet the requirements of regulation 28 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015, such that the regulator should accept his registration? Answering that question requires consideration, however, of much of Mr Schumacher’s past professional history of children’s home leadership, the context, and the extent of his responsibility for the identified weaknesses and issues identified in some of his previous employment because of the terms of regulation 28 which require Ofsted (and by extension, us) to be satisfied of the matters and things there set out. 59. We remind ourselves too, that the burden of establishing that Mr Schumacher is a fit person to manage a children’s home rests on him5. This was common ground in the hearing- Mrs Schumacher accepted this in her closing submissions. 60. The other question for consideration here is one of practical benefit. Mr Schumacher parted ways with his employer for whom he was intending to work at Heartfilled House when he was dismissed on 28 October 2025. Guardian Homes appointed another Registered Manager in the form of Mrs Kerry Dowell. Subsequently Guardian Homes accepted that they were not going to maintain the registration of Heartfilled House in any event, and they withdrew their appeal against deregistration. Not only therefore does Mr Schumacher not have a role with the company seeking registration of the Children’s Home, but the Children's Home for which he was to be Registered Manager is no longer in existence. 61. But as the Tribunal identified in its decision of 7 October 2025 on the strike out application, the purpose of this appeal for Mr Schumacher is rather more wide-ranging and important than the decision on Heartfilled House. For Mr Schumacher the specific outcome is rather less important than the findings we make (or don’t make) about his professional integrity. 62. We have considered the evidence relating to Mr Schumacher’s fitness with respect to his previous history, both as a Registered Manager and more generally as a member of the senior management of a number of companies providing children’s homes. This is contained in the documents in the bundle, and in Mr Schumacher’s own written statements. As Mr Schumacher did not attend any part of the hearing, it was not possible to gain any additional evidence from him as to his views on his past employment history and experience, or for that evidence to be tested in cross- examination. Ms Birks said that the absence was highly significant, and said it should impact the 5 Jones -v- Commission for Social Care Inspection [2004] EWCA Civ 1713 and Marshall -v- Commission for Social Care Inspection [2009] EWHC 1286. weight we could give to his evidence in contrast to the evidence of the Ofsted witnesses who had all attended and submitted themselves to extensive cross- examination by Mrs Schumacher. 63. We can only rely on the written evidence from Mr Schumacher before us as to his fitness, and on the oral and written evidence of the Ofsted witnesses. In her submissions, and during her cross- examination of the Ofsted witnesses, Mrs Schumacher made much of what she said was ‘cherry-picking’ by Ofsted of the more negative aspects of Mr Schumacher’s inspection history, and problems and difficulties in the homes, rather than balancing out these negative issues with the positives and the improvements that Mr Schumacher had made during his time in his various employments. We were prepared to consider all of the evidence relating to all of the homes that was put before us; but the evidence of the positive changes Mr Schumacher asserted he had made across his various employments was not set out in detail in any of the three witness statements he had submitted, even though the second statement, dated 16 December 2025, was accompanied by 89 exhibits extending to some 296 pages. Mr Schumacher did make more substantive comments on his various employments in the reconsideration request letter dated 30 June 2025 and we have considered these carefully as part of our review of all of the evidence. Issue 1: Mr Schumacher’s relevant employment history 64. The first issue relied on by Ofsted with respect to Mr Schumacher’s fitness was his employment history as a leader prior to his application to be Registered Manager at Guardian Homes. We turn first to consider this evidence. Blue Mountain Homes (The Oaklands) 6 August 2020- 18 March 2022 65. We accepted the evidence of Ms Norcop and Ms Grandfield that there had been direct and widespread concerns about the leadership and management at Oaklands home. The home opened with Mr Schumacher as Registered Manager and it achieved a Requires Improvement rating in October 2021. A monitoring visit in March 2022 identified that there had been a decline in effectiveness and that compliance requirements under regulation 13 had not been met. The concerns raised included that children’s needs had not been considered before they moved into the home, incidents with potentially serious consequences had occurred and staff were said not to have the right skills to meet children’s needs. There were also concerns about record keeping, monitoring and supervision of children and lack of suitable risk assessments. Ms Grandfield said in her evidence that a number of concerns about Mr Schumacher’s integrity had been raised by allocated inspectors and the Blue Mountain Homes director in March 2022, but she accepted these were not disclosed or contained in the bundle. By April 2022, the home was downgraded to inadequate, very shortly after Mr Schumacher left the company. 66. We accept too that at least some compliance notices were issued following a baby death, and that serious failings were identified. Mr Schumacher accepted in his evidence and during the FPI interview that his period of leadership there had been difficult and he described it as ‘particularly challenging’ in both professional and personal terms. In his two key witness statements, however, Mr Schumacher says very little else about his time at the home other than to say that Blue Mountain had terminated his employment with immediate effect during an Ofsted inspection following the death of his sister and whilst he was off sick, and noting that he subsequently won an employment tribunal claim against them. Given that this was a key period of time when he was in his only Registered Manager role, we considered this omission significant. We also note that as he did not attend the hearing, it was not possible to question him more widely on the extent to which he accepted, or acknowledged Ofsted’s concerns arising from these inspections. Although he refers to the Inspectors failing to address concerns about how he was presenting at the time, he had nothing to say about the systems or processes in place at the home and no apparent explanation for the poor judgments which reflected the period over which he was consistently Registered Manager. 67. Ms Norcop in particular also acknowledged personal difficulties at the end of his time in post, but said the failures in the service were long-standing and not particularly related to that limited, end period of time. 68. In our view, the period that Mr Schumacher spent at Oaklands is very significant. It is to date the only period when he has been a Registered Manager and it was for a sustained period of time. There were 4 inspections of some form during that time and at no point during Mr Schumacher’s tenure did the home achieve a good rating. Serious failings were identified throughout the period in question including, it appears, a child’s death. Whilst we accept, as Ofsted did, that Mr Schumacher had some personal challenges towards the end, including the death of his sister and his own ill health, this cannot explain the sustained failings at a time well in advance of this- and Mr Schumacher himself conceded that his time in post had been difficult. 69. We also acknowledge that he subsequently won a tribunal claim against Blue Mountain Homes for unfair dismissal. But that does not take away from the poor inspection judgments. The fact that the company may have unfairly dismissed Mr Schumacher does not demonstrate that he was not responsible for any of the failings of the company in this period. As Registered Manager he must, we find, be directly implicated in them. Mr Schumacher makes no attempt to explain them in his statements. 70. In our view Ofsted was entitled to conclude that Mr Schumacher’s time as Registered Manager showed poor leadership and management skills, and they were also entitled to conclude, as we discuss later, that the discussion of this period in Mr Schumacher’s FPI demonstrated that he had learned little from the experience and was unable to reflect on it in a meaningful way that would improve his care for children going forwards. He acknowledged that a child had died at this time, but his answers about the failure of risk management at the home (bundle A, page 105) concentrated on the impact on him, rather than changes to safeguarding processes that he would have made in response to these experiences- despite prompting from the interviewing inspector. He said he had learned a lot; but in our view was less able to verbalise what that was. This appeal hearing was a merits hearing, giving Mr Schumacher the opportunity to make that case again. Again, he did not take the opportunity of this hearing to set out why the perceived failures were not attributable to him, even in his written evidence. Olive Tree Residential (Piano Barn and Poplar’s Farm) 1 August 2022- 2 September 2023 71. Mr Schumacher undertook the role of acting Registered Manager for two homes, Piano Barn and Poplars Farm between January 2023 and July 2023. Although he applied for registration as formal Registered Manager for both, the applications were withdrawn before his registration was completed, on him leaving the company. Mr Schumacher had previously been the deputy Registered Manager from August 2022. He applied to be Registered Manager for Piano Barn on 11 January 2023 and to be Registered Manager of Poplar’s Farm on 18 April 2023. Mr Matkar-Cox’s oral evidence was that Mr Schumacher withdrew his applications to be Registered Manager on 26 July 2023. 72. 73. Piano Barn Piano Barn was only dealt with in the witness statements of Ms Norcop and Mr Matkar-Cox, though Ms Grandfield did deal with this home in her oral evidence, and indicated that not referring to it in her witness statement had been an error. The inspectors indicated that at the time of an inspection in November 2022, when Mr Schumacher was deputy Registered Manager, the home had been judged inadequate in all areas and had been subject to compliance notices. Serious concerns were raised about leadership and management and about safeguarding of children (bundle A, page 533). A monitoring visit in January 2023 which noted Mr Schumacher’s arrival in post judged that the compliance notices had been met and that the new manager(s) had made changes and improvements to the home which had a positive impact on children’s care and overall day – to – day experiences. The January 2023 report noted that management oversight and monitoring processes were improving. The full inspection in March 2023 judged the home good and commented positively on Mr Schumacher’s role, saying that he understood the home’s strengths and weaknesses and had plans in place for the development of the home. It referenced that notable improvements had been made. The notice of proposal (bundle A, at page 134) noted only that Piano Barn had been judged good in March 2023 and did not go on to say anything else about its subsequent history. Mr Schumacher complains however that in the Notice of Decision, Ofsted then referenced the July 2023 inspection which had given a provisional judgment of inadequate (bundle A, page 178) and that they altered their provisional decision to indicate that they were now also relying on this July 2023 inspection too as evidence of further poor -quality care. We note for clarity that the July 2023 inspection was never published, because the home voluntarily closed following the inspection, rendering publication unnecessary. 74. We do not think that Mr Schumacher’s criticism of the approach taken by Ofsted in the notice of proposal and subsequent notice of decision is warranted. In its notice of proposal Ofsted effectively gave Mr Schumacher credit for the Good rating obtained at Piano Barn in March 2023. It was in fact Mr Schumacher’s own comment in his representations in response to the notice of proposal (bundle A, page 156) ‘..by March 2023 the home was judged Good in all areas. This trajectory clearly demonstrates improvement over time, in line with the SCCIF’s expectation that leaders promote sustained progress in care quality and outcomes for children.’ which prompted Ofsted to seek to rebut this as misleading, in the notice of decision. In our view Mr Schumacher cannot criticise Ofsted for responding to his representations in the manner they did. The statutory process for issuing the notice of proposal, allowing representations and then publishing a notice of decision is to allow an applicant the right of reply to the initial findings. The notice of decision allows the Respondent to accept or not accept the representations made, or to alter their conclusions, in reaching a final decision. The process does not require Ofsted to give an applicant an opportunity to comment on any proposed variations to their decision made in light of the representations. In our view Mr Schumacher cannot really complain that Ofsted took into account his representations in reaching their final decision. And to the extent he does have a right of complaint about their reliance on the July 2023 inspection, that lies to this Tribunal. In his second witness statement, Mr Schumacher also said that 2 inspections had taken place at Piano Barn in July 2023, but that he had been present for only one of them. He said that as he had not been present for the second inspection, he had not been aware of its outcome, because he had left the home by then, and also that it was never published because the home voluntarily closed before it was finalised. He also said that in including this evidence in the notice of decision only for the first time, he was denied the opportunity to deal with it. Mrs Schumacher questioned Mr Matkar-Cox about this in similar terms. We take into account both Mr Schumacher’s written material making these points, and Mr Matkar-Cox’s response in his evidence. In our view, even accepting that the decision was never formally published, we cannot accept that Mr Schumacher was unaware of its provisional findings. As Ms Norcop said in her oral evidence, Mr Schumacher led the inspection team on 5 and 6 July and we accept her evidence, and that of Mr Matkar-Cox, that the ‘second inspection’ was not a separate re-inspection- it was simply an additional evidence gathering inspection, intended to ‘secure’ evidence not fully obtained during the main inspection. Although Mrs Schumacher tried to make much of the absence of the names of Rumbi Mangoma and Nurul Kabir from the final inspection report, and relied on this as ‘evidence’ that the ‘first’ inspection had been withdrawn, we consider it much more likely that this was simply an error of omission. We accept the key point that Mr Schumacher was present at and participated in the main inspection in July and was still in post at the time. At this point, even though Mr Schumacher said he was on sick leave, he was also immediately thereafter on annual leave: his email to Michelle Spruce (bundle A, page 668) suggested that he was back on 23 July 2023 and was looking to rearrange his FPI for after that date. This does not suggest someone who had, essentially, walked away from the home at a point in late June as Mr Schumacher’s own evidence suggested. But even if he had, we consider it much more likely that Mr Schumacher was already beginning to try 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. and distance himself from the home and the failures that the inspection was likely to (and did) uncover. Furthermore, it would have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity for someone seeking to become Registered Manager of a home not to seek out what conclusions Ofsted had reached with respect to an inspection he had led. The suggestion that the early July inspection was somehow set aside is, in our view, an attempt again to distance himself from an inspection that he led and which, all other things being equal, would have led to him presiding as acting Registered Manager over an inadequate outcome. And even if he had become ill in June 2023, this does not negate the fact that the inspection was considering the period since the last inspection, not just the last couple of weeks. Mr Schumacher was in post throughout this period. If we are not right in that conclusion, it would have been open to Mr Schumacher to explain in detail in his witness statements to the Tribunal why those conclusions that there were failings at Piano Barn were not attributable to him were not accurate. He could also have explained why the conclusion of Ofsted that the improvements noted in March 2023 had not been sustained was not fair. He did not do so. He simply said that he was not effectively Registered Manager by this stage. In our view, that is not an answer to the issues identified. Some attempt was made in the hearing, and in the documentation, to link the inspection outcomes to the movements of an Ofsted inspector, Dean Wilton from Ofsted to Olive Tree Residential and back again in a short period of time. It was presented as evidence of a lack of transparency on Ofsted’s part about the roles of inspectors who also at times worked for providers. But it was never clear whether, and if so, how, it was alleged that any conflict of interest arose from Mr Wilton’s various roles- and we note that it was in fact him who led the January 2023 monitoring inspection that gave Olive Tree a positive outcome. In our view the conclusions reached by Ofsted about Piano Barn were balanced and fair. We consider that they did give credit to Mr Schumacher for the improvements made between November 2022 and March 2023, but it was also right to take into account that by the time of July 2023 when Mr Schumacher was still in post, those improvements had been lost, more particularly as Mr Schumacher had relied heavily on it as evidence of good performance. Mr Schumacher’s own evidence does not seek to explain why Ofsted’s conclusions were wrong by reference to what was happening, and what Mr Schumacher was doing to improve things, in the home. The suggestion made by Mrs Schumacher at the hearing was that as Mr Schumacher was not a Registered Manager that he somehow had less responsibility to oversee the home. We reject that submission. Mr Schumacher was plainly fulfilling that role and was seeking registration at the time. If he was to be absent from that role for more than 28 days, then he should have notified Ofsted of this fact, as Mr Matkar-Cox said. He did not do so. Poplar’s Farm Poplar’s Farm was judged to be requires improvement overall in December 82. 83. 84. 85. 2022, prior to Mr Schumacher commencing the Registered Manager role, and was also judged at the time to be inadequate for leadership and management. By March 2023, and the time of an assurance inspection, the Responsible Individual had changed to James McCabe and Mr Schumacher was acting Registered Manager. We accept that the March 2023 assurance inspection identified no serious and widespread concerns (bundle A, page 552) and some positives were identified including that the quality of recording by managers had improved. However, the report identified continuing concerns about recording of physical interventions by staff and noted that the oversight of the manager (which in this context was plainly Mr Schumacher) ‘…of some areas has not identified shortfalls in practice… This does not provide assurance that the manager’s current monitoring systems will consistently identify and address shortfalls in practice’. Further compliance notices were made or extended. By June 2023, the home remained requires improvement at the next inspection (bundle A, page 559). By then, 3 children had moved out of the home, and it was noted that relationships with key stakeholders, including the children’s school and placing authority had broken down (bundle A, page 561). The last child left the home on 1 June meaning that by the time of the inspection there were no children present. That inspection referenced poor decision making, mixed experiences for children and a failure by managers and leaders to work effectively with education professionals. ‘Some time at the hearing was spent analysing what criticism was made of Mr Schumacher by the comment (made in Ms Grandfield’s statement) that one of the identified problems with Poplar’s Farm and Mr Schumacher’s role in it was that he had ‘agree[d] to care for children whose needs he could not meet’ (bundle A, page 227). Ms Grandfield noted that this was primarily a statement made in the notice of proposal – at paragraph 7 (bundle A, page 134) but she also said that this finding came from Mr Schumacher’s own comment in the FPI. Mrs Schumacher subsequently challenged this. It is not clear where in the FPI this comment is said to be found. At one point Mr Schumacher said that ‘I cannot manage a large amount of children, 6 kids. I take that.’ But there is nothing else. In her closing submissions, Mrs Schumacher made reference to this point and said that whilst this issue had been identified by Ms Grandfield she had never asked him about it in the FPI. However, in our view the actual source of this allegation was more clearly identified in the notice of proposal itself- as being the June 2023 inspection report: it was said to be one of the shortfalls identified. But a review of that report does not identify this criticism either. And we do not think Mr Schumacher was actually saying in the FPI that he knowingly took on children whose needs he could not meet; he was commenting that he had learned the lesson that he only wanted to manage homes (and only felt he could manage homes) where there were no more than 1 or 2 children present. In the end we considered the point sterile. It added nothing to the general criticisms levelled at the leadership and management of Poplar’s Farm over the time of Mr Schumacher’s leadership and we were content to treat this particular point as not proved. 86. Again, we accept that the June 2023 report contained some positives. But the overall judgement was that the home was not good. And whilst the June inspection referred to Mr Schumacher as an experienced and qualified manager, it noted that taking over responsibility for another home (Piano Barn) had impacted the quality of care he provided to children (bundle A, page 562). It concluded that his monitoring systems were still not effective. The report noted ‘there are no clear lines of accountability between the manager, responsible individual and the director. Leaders are all involved in different aspects of management of the home.’ The report did note some recent strengthening of the leadership by the recruitment of others, but said it was too soon to say how this would play out. Ms Norcop noted in her statement with respect to the June 2023 inspection that Mr Schumacher’s ‘leadership had been unable to elicit necessary improvement for children in order for them to receive good quality care’ (bundle A, page 217). 87. We accept that Mr Schumacher had the benefit of a positive reference from Mr McCabe who had been his responsible individual and who raised no concerns about his abilities. 88. Mr Schumacher’s initial position on Poplar’s Farm was set out in his first witness statement, but the statement referred interchangeably to the two homes, and asserted at various points that he was no longer overseeing the second home (which in his statement is Poplar’s Farm) and that the recruitment of a former Ofsted inspector (Mr Wilton) had blurred lines of responsibility. The Ofsted reports for Poplars Farm however appear to suggest that it was Piano Barn home that Mr Schumacher was intending to step away from -and this apparent contradiction was never resolved in the evidence. As Mr Schumacher did not give evidence before us, it was not possible to clarify this issue, or the timings which are only vaguely asserted in this part of his statement. In his second statement, he again referred to Poplar’s Farm and said, in the same way as he asserted with respect to Piano Barn, that there were two full inspections in June, the first of which, conducted by Rumbi Mangoma and Nurul Kabir was withdrawn, and followed by a second conducted by Michelle Spruce and Paul Robinson. Apart from saying that this inspection noted that the directors had too much involvement in the day-to-day management of the homes he again made very little comment on the substance of the criticism’s raised or sought to explain his role in leading and managing these homes more deeply. 89. Mr Schumacher says in effect however that Ofsted’s decision now places sole accountability for the failings in leadership and management on him and he said that he was not, in effect, by this time actually overseeing either home (see bundle A, page 239-240, paragraph 4). Mr Schumacher said in his statement that he was unaware of the findings of the inspection and also said that he had been given no opportunity to discuss any of the findings or to present his case or present evidence to refute Ofsted’s position. 90. His discussion of this period in the FPI only suggested that he was pressured by other managers and leaders to take in more children to keep cash flow coming and said that he had been told what to do because he was not the Registered Manager. But he accepted that he did not consider that he could manage a large number of children simultaneously. It was suggested at the hearing that a complaint had been made by Mr Schumacher with respect to 91. Mr Kabir’s conduct of the inspection in June 2023 and that this had led to the inspection report being withdrawn. But Mr Matkar-Cox said that Ofsted had no record of this and that a request to Mr Schumacher for sight of any documentation about this had gone unanswered. No documentation about this was put before us either, and we note that Mrs Schumacher asked Ofsted’s lawyers in an email dated 16 December 2025 (bundle B, page 933) why the inspection involving Mr Kabir had been ‘withdrawn’. Mr Schumacher refers to this complaint at paragraph 35 of his supplemental witness statement- but the referenced exhibit was simply the request from Mrs Schumacher for details of the inspection. It did not contain any evidence of a complaint (see exhibit 86 to this statement). The inspection report for Poplar’s Farm in June 2023 related to a period when Mr Schumacher was in post and dealt with the period since the last full inspection in December 2022. It found multiple failings which were attributable to Mr Schumacher as acting Registered Manager as much as they were to any other manager or leader in the business. As we concluded with respect to Piano Barn we do not find that Mr Schumacher can avoid implication in the conclusions of that inspection by simply relying on being on sick or annual leave at the time of the inspection and having never been formally appointed as Registered Manager. In his representations in response to the notice of proposal and in Mrs Schumacher’s questions to Ms Norcop, it was suggested that the improvement in the leadership and management judgment from inadequate in December 2022 to requires improvement in June 2023 represented an improvement in the home’s regulatory profile. Ms Norcop accepted that it was an improvement but maintained that this was not evidence of good care for children. Plainly it was still requiring improvement. We agree. The fact that things were less bad than they were did not require Ofsted to give significant credit to Mr Schumacher when the home was still not meeting the basic required standard. 92. Mr Schumacher said that he was not given an opportunity to explain the position or refute it. We disagree. He was clearly afforded an opportunity to discuss this in his FPI and this appeal has also given him the chance to put in whatever evidence he wished to about these inspections. We have considered carefully the material he has submitted and the explanation he has given. We consider that Ofsted were entitled to conclude that the failings at Poplars Farm when Mr Schumacher was acting Registered Manager were attributable to him as much as to any other member of the management and leadership team. Adecyn Homes - 4 September 2023- 20 September 2024 93. Mr Schumacher’s role at Adecyn Homes was rather different to his roles at the other children’s homes. He indicated that this was deliberate. He took a role as Operations Manager, and it was a central plank of his case in relation to his time at this group that he was never in a regulated position for any of their 5 relevant homes and that he should not be judged by Ofsted on the same basis as someone who was. The five homes were Oak; Dimsdale Lodge; Charnwood, Peascroft and Acorn. 94. The Appellant’s evidence in relation to Adecyn Homes is found principally in his supplemental witness statement and in his letter requesting reconsideration of the original decision. It can be summarised as follows. He noted that he was accused of apportioning blame to others for the failings at Adecyn Homes during his FPI and said that he had raised significant concerns about Ms Thompson when he resigned and said that Ofsted did not act on them. He said that he did identify areas of improvement for the managers at Adecyn Homes but that he was obstructed when he requested action be taken. He said that others had deflected blame for failings onto him to exonerate themselves. He said that he had raised shortfalls at Ofsted too and that this was not appreciated. He said that his resignation was evidence that he did not work for organisations that did not take appropriate action. In his second statement he said that there had been no disciplinary or safeguarding concerns on his file. He said more widely, particularly in the reconsideration letter, that Ofsted had failed to take account of good inspection outcomes at some of the homes, notably Oak and Dimsdale and that their judgment was selective and not balanced. He said he had not had opportunity to discuss Adecyn Homes or his concerns at his FPI. In his wider bundle materials Mr Schumacher relied on considerable internal correspondence particularly with HR as well as his own appraisal reports and a reference from Jowaine Blake, his former Responsible Individual prior to Ms Thompson. As we noted at the hearing, we appreciate that it was part of Mr Schumacher’s case that the failings at Adecyn Homes were attributable to others- but we were clear that we were only in a position to make clear judgements about Mr Schumacher himself. None of the other people with whom he worked at Adecyn Homes were before the Tribunal, nor had they had any chance to respond. The material in the appeal bundle came only from Ofsted and Mr Schumacher, and we would not be in a position to formulate any sound view on the specific responsibility of others for any failings, even to the extent that we accepted that this might exist. We have approached Mr Schumacher’s time at Adecyn Homes in that light. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal Mr Matkar-Cox had said that when considering the experience and skills of people in leadership roles, it was legitimate to consider a Registered Manager and those who were acting as Registered Manager in the same way because in both cases the person would be in charge and have oversight of the home. He noted that the Operations Manager role was different, as there would be other, more key people who held more responsibility legally for the home. It was reasonable to expect that they would have more impact on the care provided to children in the home. Mr Matkar-Cox said that he did not suggest that Mr Schumacher was solely, or even principally to blame for the failings at Adecyn Homes and accepted others were ‘more culpable’. He said there were others at Adecyn Homes with more significant roles, some of the homes were without Registered Managers for extended periods and when they did have managers, sometimes they were also poor. But he said the key point was that Ofsted were looking for evidence that Mr Schumacher himself was a fit person to be registered. 95. 96. 97. Mr Matkar-Cox said that the FPI was an assessment of experience and skills- and it was legitimate for Ofsted to explore Mr Schumacher’s time in this role given that he had said he was responsible for regulatory compliance. He said Mr Schumacher had a chance to demonstrate how he delivered good care to children. He said the FPI had given Mr Schumacher also chance to reflect on his performance in this role without attributing undue blame to him and he said that Ofsted’s conclusion was that Mr Schumacher’s reflection was limited. He said the more limited role played by Mr Schumacher in Adecyn Homes had been taken into account. He also told the tribunal that the real concern for Ofsted was that his time there gave them evidence, they felt, of the continuation of a pattern of poor care and regulatory concerns that had been evident at all of the homes he had worked in. He said that to an extent with the specific issues that arose they were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He said placing more weight on the responsibilities of Registered Managers in Adecyn Homes did not detract from the fact that Mr Schumacher had oversight of children’s care and that Ofsted would expect an effective Operations Manager to be able to demonstrate clearly the positive impact they had on children’s care. The evidence of Ms Grandfield on this point was similar- that she gave weight to the statement that Mr Schumacher said he was responsible for oversight of the managers and undertaking audits (witness statement paragraph 19, bundle A, page 227) and she also gave evidence that the Director of Adecyn Homes had suggested to her that Mr Schumacher’s leadership abilities were reflected in the most recent inspection history (page 226, paragraph 15). She also said that the Director had indicated that Mr Schumacher had failed to submit regulation 40 notices that were required. In cross examination, Ms Grandfield said that that the key issues for Ofsted in relation to Mr Schumacher’s time with Adecyn Homes was his oversight and responsibility for safeguarding practices. Ms Norcop also referred to what she said was a pattern of non-compliance in multiple settings and a decline in effectiveness of some services (bundle A, page 217). In her oral evidence, Ms Norcop said that the shortfalls at Adecyn Homes did not sit solely with Mr Schumacher, she accepted that he had undertaken audits but said these appeared to reflect a pattern that these were ineffective to raise standards in the homes. 98. 99. We turn to consider the individual homes and start with Oak and Dimsdale because these were at times graded good in all areas and Mr Schumacher says that he was not given any, or enough, credit for that. 100. Dimsdale home was judged good in September 2023 (bundle A, page 266). Oak was judged good in November 2023 (bundle A, page 275). Mr Schumacher was Operations Manager at the time of both inspections. Ms Grandfield said in evidence that the inspection outcomes took into account all of the period since the previous inspection. She noted that when Dimsdale was judged good, Mr Schumacher had been in post for only a few days, and when Oak was judged good, he had been in post for about 2 months. She said that whilst these results had been taken into account, it was considered that Mr Schumacher would have had limited impact on the results achieved, particularly for Dimsdale. Ms Norcop’s oral evidence was similar. Mr Matkar- Cox said that he accepted that some good ratings had been achieved at times but with respect to Oak he said this was achieved only a few days after Mr Schumacher had arrived and it reflected a period prior to his arrival on the whole. He noted that the home had no children present at the time of the inspection and none moved in during the time Mr Schumacher was in post. He said that Mr Schumacher had assisted in the transition of one child out to Acorn (which Mr Schumacher himself also mentioned), but this did not offer much evidence. 101. In his own comments, Mr Schumacher merely noted the change in inspection results and quoted some of the reports. It is unclear whether he intended to draw anything further out other than that the home had been judged good in September 2023. 102. With respect to Dimsdale and Oak children’s homes, we accept the approach taken by Ofsted, and we agree that whilst these did provide evidence of good performance in both homes, the extent to which this could be credited to Mr Schumacher was limited, and the good judgments were not sustained over time in any event. 103. Charnwood home got a good rating in December 2023, (bundle A, page 290) at its first inspection, but Ofsted noted that this home was inadequate in August 2024 (bundle A, page 321) with a restriction of accommodation being imposed and compliance notices issued. Ms Grandfield accepted that the good rating had been achieved in Mr Schumacher’s time in post but said that this performance had not been sustained as was evident from the later inspection. She subsequently accepted that a monitoring inspection in September 2024 had confirmed that the home had met its compliance requirements. Again, she said that this did not demonstrate that the overall care was good, the home still lacked consistency. Mr Matkar-Cox also told us that Ofsted had had serious concerns about the decline in the quality of care at Charnwood, though he again said that he was not suggesting that Mr Schumacher was solely, or mainly, responsible for the shortfalls. 104. Mr Schumacher says about this home that he had identified shortfalls in management oversight and safeguarding and had requested disciplinary action and conducted an internal investigation. He said the deputy Registered Manager had been dismissed. He said that in the lead up to the August 2024 inspection he had identified a serious breach of a young person’s safety plan by the deputy manager. He also said that the monitoring visit which occurred just after he had resigned had found that compliance requirements imposed in August had been met. The October 2024 inspection had been arranged to look into the concerns that he said he had raised about the Responsible Individual. Those concerns, dealt with elsewhere in documentation included that a staff member had not been suspended when they should have been, because of staff shortages, and also that staff had stayed at the home overnight. 105. We accept that the compliance notices imposed in August 2024 had been met by the monitoring inspection in September. But we also note that the last of the children had left the home in late August, one of whom left after an incident which persuaded the placing authority to move the child out. The monitoring report noted that staff had failed to follow one child’s risk assessment which led to the child going missing again and being left unsupported and unsupervised at times. The report also concluded that the home did not have sufficient staff in place for the number of children it was registered for. The monitoring visit was limited in scope, but it does not, in our view, represent any very positive view of the home’s processes even after compliance was met. Mr Schumacher blamed Ms Thompson for the subsequent Requires Improvement rating in October 2024. But in our view, Ofsted were right not to rely on this as it post-dated Mr Schumacher’s time in post, and the failings it identified were not attributed to Mr Schumacher by Ofsted in any event. For the reasons we gave earlier, we are not here to judge the skills and experience of other leaders and managers. 106. Ofsted’s evidence was that Acorn Lodge was judged inadequate in July 2024 and a compliance notice under regulation 13 was issued. Ofsted noted serious issues about safeguarding and leadership and management of the home. A copy of the July 2024 inspection was not made available to us, but we have reviewed the prior and subsequent reports from January 2024 and from August and October 2024. In July 2023, just prior to Mr Schumacher’s arrival, the home had been inspected and found to be Requires Improvement. The January 2024 report noted some positives and that 2 children were living in the home. It was said to be well presented, children’s moves into the home were well planned, and incidents had decreased significantly. It noted variable quality risk assessments however, and said staff did not have clear guidance on how to respond to children’s behaviours. It noted that senior managers had recently undertaken an audit that had identified this and there was an action plan in place to improve it (bundle A, starting page 301, at 302). The report said children did not always receive care from staff who understood their needs and this was because they didn’t always have relevant training. Record keeping was also said to be variable. This was the context for the July inspection and its inadequate rating. It is reasonable to assume that these issues were not rectified by the subsequent inspection. 107. The monitoring visit report from August (bundle A, page 337) indicated that the July inspection had found serious and widespread failures in relation to keeping children safe and in the leadership and management of the home. A compliance notice relating to leadership and management had been issued. It noted further changes in the leadership, and there were again comments about improvements since the July inspection. But the report also noted that whilst an audit of the home had taken place, which had identified some shortfalls in management oversight, it said it was not clear how the audit had been used to improve oversight and monitoring or whether managers had reviewed the action plan. By October, just after Mr Schumacher had left, the home was graded Requires Improvement, but the leadership and management was inadequate. The report noted that overall safeguarding practice had improved but incidents continued and record keeping quality was variable. Some monitoring systems were in place, but they were not well documented, and it said the quality of care that children received was inconsistently monitored. 108. Mr Schumacher himself referred to the January 2023 assurance inspection and quoted some of the positive findings. He said that the July 2024 inadequate rating was based in part on concerns that he had raised himself with the inspector, that the home’s manager had not shared accurate information with external professionals. He said that he continued to challenge internally about this manager and he said that he had placed the Manager on a performance improvement plan in March 2024. He said he also devised an action plan to meet the identified shortfalls. He also identified the subsequent inspection results and noted some comments from them. 109. Ofsted’s evidence noted in relation to Peascroft that this was judged in June 2024 to require improvement overall and to be inadequate in leadership and management specifically. In questioning, Ms Grandfield and Ms Norcop accepted that this home had been graded good in January 2024 when Mr Schumacher was in post, but both said that the issue was consistency of delivery- and that this wasn’t demonstrated because the home’s performance rapidly declined. Mr Matkar-Cox also said that this was evidence that good care for children was not sustained and that leadership in particular was poor. 110. Mr Schumacher did not make any comment directly on his impact on Peascroft, but he referred to the inspection history, with quotations from the reports. It is unclear what conclusion he was asking Ofsted to draw (and by extension, the Tribunal). He said in his representations that he has escalated concerns about the Registered Manager at Peascoft including raising safeguarding issues with senior leaders up to and including the day of his resignation. He said this showed his willingness to challenge poor practice. 111. As we noted earlier, Mr Schumacher submitted extensive evidence in support of his time at Adecyn Homes. It does not make happy reading. It is clear that responsibility, and accountability, for various regulatory roles was at best diffuse, and it appears (based on the limited materials we have seen) that who should have made regulation 40 declarations to Ofsted about one home was contentious. We accept that Mr Schumacher says that he persistently raised issues internally and eventually also raised some issues with Ofsted. Mr Matkar-Cox accepted that Ofsted’s view of Adecyn Homes more generally was that it was a dysfunctional organisation with significant culture issues. 112. Our overall conclusion in relation to all of these homes, and Mr Schumacher’s own role with them, was that there were clearly pre-existing difficulties in a number of the homes and continuing difficulties about record-keeping, monitoring and safe systems. We accept, as Ofsted did, that there were many other people in leadership and management roles across Mr Schumacher’s time at Adecyn Homes and we also accept that he doesn’t bear primary responsibility for all of the problems and the judgments reached. There were times, as Mrs Schumacher identified, when some of the homes did achieve good inspection judgments. But these were at times when it was hard to give Mr Schumacher much credit for them. Furthermore, Mr Schumacher’s role in Adecyn Homes was, as he said himself, regulatory compliance. Ofsted accepted that he had identified issues in some audits but they said that this did not materialise into sustained improvements across the homes. And in our view, not being the Registered Manager or Responsible Individual does not allow Mr Schumacher to disclaim all responsibility for regulatory failures when he was a member of the senior management. We also consider that, to an appropriate degree, these issues must also be taken into account when considering his skills and experience for the purpose of regulation 28 fitness. We find that whilst there were some improvements at some homes at times under Mr Schumacher’s time in post, these were not sustained, and the quality of care declined again. We also find that Mr Schumacher apparently had considerable influence over some of the Registered Managers if he was able to undertake investigations into them and instigate disciplinary action. This is not wholly consistent with Mr Schumacher’s assertions that he was unable to control the actions of others. 113. We note that Mr Matkar-Cox said in evidence that Ofsted might have been prepared to give Mr Schumacher ‘the benefit of the doubt’ about his time at Adecyn Homes if the themes emerging there had been different from those that had been seen at other homes in which Mr Schumacher was in a leadership role. It was the fact that the issues appeared to be the same that led Ofsted to rely on this period too. In our view, that represents a fair and proportionate approach to judgment about this period. Issue 2: The Fit Person Interview (FPI) & the allegation of bias against Marianne Grandfield 114. At the hearing, we noted that the issue around the FPI, what had been asked and what Mr Schumacher had replied, had been identified as one between the parties, but that the issue of a potential conflict of interest, and therefore the risk of apparent bias on the part of Ms Grandfield, identified by the Appellant front and centre in his appeal, had not. Ms Birks indicated that the Scott Schedule contained an account only of all of the Respondent’s issues and seemed surprised at the suggestion that it should also include the Appellant’s. But that is precisely what a Scott Schedule is- a detailed statement of all of the issues between the parties which they have identified as being for the Tribunal to resolve. It would hardly perform that function if the schedule contained only those issues identified by one party. It would also render somewhat nugatory the directions given by the Tribunal requiring the parties to both comment on and agree the Scott Schedule (see for example, bundle A, page 94, paragraph 11(b)). 115. Given the Appellant’s position that the FPI was not a fair and impartial opportunity for Mr Schumacher to present evidence of his experience and learning fully, and given that at least a part of the assertion for this was the alleged bias in the conduct of the interview, it is necessary to consider the content of the FPI and the question of bias somewhat alongside each other. The Respondent says that the FPI is an important part of the application process, that the Appellant knew this and that the answers he gave in the interview gave significant cause for concern such that this too plays a significant part in the decision to refuse his registration. Mr Schumacher on the other hand says the interview was tainted with bias, and was unbalanced in its questioning and should, to a large extent be set aside or re-run. The bias allegation against Ms Grandfield 116. We consider the issue of bias first and turn to the FPI more generally in the light of our conclusions. As just noted, it was a key plank of the Appellant’s argument that Ms Grandfield was biased in her conduct of the FPI, through the pre-existing relationship with Ms Ashleen Thompson a childhood friend who had worked as Adecyn Homes as the Responsible Individual towards the end of Mr Schumacher’s time there. It was said that Ms Grandfield knew of the link prior to the FPI and had been told specifically by Mr Schumacher that he was in dispute with his RI (because he had made this clear in his response email to Ms Grandfield’s initial contact) and Ms Grandfield knew at that point that the person he was talking about was Ms Thompson. 117. Mrs Schumacher referred us in her skeleton argument to the well-known lead authority on the issue of apparent bias6, and submitted that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Ofsted inspector was biased. 118. We have considered carefully the oral evidence presented to us on this issue, by Ms Grandfield, Mr Matkar-Cox, Mr Tallis and their witness statements, the witness statements of Mr Schumacher and the other documents in the bundle. We have also had regard to the brief report of Ann Pritchard, a Senior His Majesty’s Inspector, who apparently undertook a further review of the issues in July 2025. Based on all of this information we make the following findings. 119. Ms Grandfield had declared a potential conflict of interest between herself and her childhood friend Ms Thompson at the time of joining Ofsted. This meant that she would not be involved in any inspection activity involving Ms Thompson directly. Ms Grandfield accepted that she and Ms Thompson had remained friends for many years and that Ms Thompson had been one of the bridesmaids at her wedding and they maintained contact through social media. She said that she had not seen Ms Thompson physically since 2023. Details of this social media contact were included in the bundle. 120. We accept that in relation to the proposed consideration of Mr Schumacher’s application for registration in respect of Guardian Homes, Ms Grandfield had been told at a point prior to becoming the allocated inspector that Ms Thompson was Mr Schumacher’s line manager by Sarah Berry, the allocated inspector for Adecyn Homes. Ms Grandfield accepted this in cross- examination. Ms Grandfield then spoke to Ms Melissa McMillan who was the Regulatory Inspection Manager who had had oversight of Oaklands, Olive Tree and of Adecyn Homes and who Ms Grandfield said had a good knowledge these homes and their operation. She said that she had consulted Ms McMillan specifically because of Mr Schumacher’s work with Adecyn Homes and discussed whether her knowledge of Ms Thompson might amount to a conflict. We accept that Ms McMillan told Ms Grandfield that as she had not worked professionally with Ms Thompson, there was no conflict of interest. The note from Ms Pritchard recalls a slightly different explanation from Ms McMillan which was that she did not perceive there to be conflict because the interview for Mr Schumacher related to another home, Heartfilled House, and not Adecyn Homes. It had been considered that Ms Grandfield was generally appropriate to conduct the FPI with Mr Schumacher because she had been involved in the Heartfilled House inspection before and this was considered to provide good continuity. 121. Following that discussion (the exact timing of which Ms Grandfield could not recall), Ms Grandfield proceeded to contact Mr Schumacher to introduce 6 Porter v Magill [[2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357 HL, per Lord Hope of Craighead at paras 95 to 105. We also considered the subsequent comments of Lady Hale in Gillies -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] 1 WLR 781 at paragraph 39 and Helow -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 2416 at paragraphs 1-3 which expand somewhat on the concept of the fair-minded and informed observer. herself as the allocated inspector for Heartfilled House (bundle B, page 831) on 19 February 2025. Mr Schumacher responded the following day in terms that bear repeating. Having said that he was looking forward to working with Ms Grandfield he continued: “In regards to your request for further references for myself I am more than happy to provide the information requested however I feel it is important to share that I have an employment tribunal claim accepted which is ongoing in relation to Adecyn Homes as I was subjected to discrimination, bullying and intimidating behaviour from the Directors and the newly appointed Responsible Individual…” 122. Ms Grandfield replied just over a week later and thanked him for sharing the information but said that they would still need additional references for Adecyn Homes. It concluded by saying that Ms Grandfield would be in touch to fix up an FPI interview date. Ms Pritchard’s note says that as part of her planning for the interview, Ms Grandfield became aware of the whistleblowing allegations made in respect of Adecyn Homes but said that Ms Grandfield was unaware of the context or that it involved Ms Thompson. In her oral evidence, Ms Grandfield denied that the regulation 40 notices that had been received from Adecyn Homes came from Ms Thompson. She said they had been received from one or more of the directors for the homes but she said it did not say on the documents who submitted them. She noted there were 3, two of which alleged that Mr Schumacher had accessed the Sue Solutions system without authorisation. 123. We accept that there clearly were submitted Regulation 40 notices from Adecyn Homes, but there was no direct evidence before us that these had been submitted by Ms Thompson (other than Mr Schumacher’s assertion), or that even if they were that Ms Grandfield knew this. We accept that at the time, she did not. Ms Grandfield’s witness statement says that the Adecyn Homes Director had told her that she had submitted a Regulation 40 notice (bundle A, page 226). 124. Ms Grandfield proceeded to conduct the FPI with Mr Schumacher on 15 April 2025. She did not mention to Mr Schumacher that she knew Ms Thompson nor did she reveal the extent of her links to her. Mr Schumacher says that he showed Tribunal documents to Ms Grandfield in the interview that showed he was in dispute with Ms Thompson. We do not accept that. We accept that he took a bundle of documents with him to the interview, and we accept this may have included employment tribunal papers. But we do not accept that either Mr Tallis or Ms Grandfield looked at them. Their evidence on this was clear, and we accept it. Mr Schumacher did not give evidence in front of us and could not be asked directly about this again. On balance we prefer Ofsted’s evidence on this point. 125. Ms Grandfield attended a case review on 25 April 2025 and presented a recommendation that Mr Schumacher was not suitable for the Registered Manager role, but the decision on that was taken by Mr Matkar-Cox. We accept that Mr Matkar-Cox was not aware at the time of the link between Ms Grandfield and Ms Thompson. It does not appear that Ms Grandfield informed him of it. Ms Grandfield drafted the Notice of Proposal, and this was issued by Mr Matkar-Cox in his own name. On 6 May, Mr Schumacher raised the question of apparent or actual bias on Ms Grandfield’s part for the first time, when Mr Matkar-Cox was on leave. At a case review on 7 May, Ms Grandfield attended, and the issue of conflict of interest was discussed. 126. We were only belatedly provided with a copy of the minutes of this meeting at the hearing, but all parties were able to cross-examine Ms Grandfield about it. That meeting was attended by Majella Russell, the Regulatory Inspection Manager, Tracey Ledder a senior His Majesty’s Inspector, Mr Tallis and Nurul Kabir as note taker. The focus was mainly on Heartfilled House but the issue of Mr Schumacher’s complaint came up. Having reviewed the document, it does not appear that the issue was extensively discussed. Ms Grandfield gave an explanation, and Ms Ledder concluded ‘we are satisfied there is no conflict of interest’. But no other rationale is given for that, and no further discussion appears to have taken place until the review by Ms Pritchard. Despite the conclusion that Ofsted considered there to be no conflict, Mr Matkar-Cox and others decided on 12 May 2025 to move Ms Grandfield off this case following that review, and Ms Norcop stepped in to support Mr Matkar-Cox going forwards. Mr Matkar-Cox explained that ‘this was not because we believed there was a conflict of interest, but to try and assure the Appellant and Guardian Homes that the process was fair and transparent...’ 127. Having considered this material at length, we consider that the key problem for Ofsted here is that Ms Grandfield knew prior to the FPI both that Mr Schumacher had worked for Adecyn Homes and that Ms Thompson was Mr Schumacher’s line manager. At the latest by the time of Mr Schumacher’s first email to her on 20 February she also became aware of a potential issue between Mr Schumacher and those above him in the company because he raised it directly. In our view, even had Ms Grandfield considered before then that she could continue to act as allocated inspector, that email should have set alarm bells ringing at Ofsted. 128. The suggestion made by Ms McMillan that there was no possibility of conflict because of the lack of a professional connection between Ms Grandfield and Ms Thompson was, frankly, and with respect, bizarre. Professional connections between people are rarely, in fact, problematic7- it is the personal nature of the connection, and the existence of a close and long-standing friendship that was the potential issue in this context. 129. In our view, the conclusion that we must draw is that it is obvious, and would be to a fair-minded and informed observer, that Ms Granfield’s long standing friendship with Mr Schumacher’s previous line manager, gave rise to a potential conflict of interest. He had told Ms Grandfield he was in dispute with his Responsible Individual because of allegations of discrimination, bullying and intimidation. Even if she did not specifically know at that point that Ms Thompson was the Responsible Individual, the factual circumstances were such that there was in our view obviously a conflict of interest in Ms Grandfield’s role. We do not suggest that Ms Grandfield was, in fact, biased against Mr Schumacher in her conduct of the initial planning or the FPI itself. Despite the suggestions of Mrs Schumacher about this, we found no evidence 7 See the discussion in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 at paragraph 25. to support that conclusion. We had no reason to doubt Ms Grandfield’s professionalism. But there was, we accept, the appearance of a conflict. 130. The suggestion in Ms Pritchard’s note that Mr Schumacher should have raised this before ignores the fact that there was no reason to assume that Mr Schumacher was aware of this prior to his email to Mr Matkar-Cox. Ofsted never suggested that he was, and it seems to us unfair of Ofsted, this issue having been raised, to in effect require him to produce more evidence of the issue beyond the prima facie material he had already provided. Once it was accepted that Ms Grandfield and Ms Thompson were childhood friends, the onus firmly shifted to Ofsted to satisfy itself that there was no conflict. The discussion given to this issue on 7 May appears to have been superficial at best, and it was, perhaps, unfair to ask such questions of Ms Grandfield in a meeting full of senior people. The fact that Ms Grandfield had not seen her friend for 18 months was, in that respect, neither here nor there. 131. The question for the Tribunal now is what is the impact of this finding on the FPI and on the decision made more widely? 132. Ms Grandfield was not the decision maker in this case- Mr Matkar-Cox was. Although he was guided by Ms Grandfield’s recommendation in the initial case review and relied on her draft Notice of Proposal, his evidence to us was that he had reviewed the material and the NOP himself and was happy with the conclusions. We also take into account that Ms Norcop stepped into the process from 12 May, prior to the final decision making and undertook her own review of the material. In oral evidence, she told us that she would have reached the same conclusions as Ms Grandfield on the material available. There was no suggestion that Ms Norcop had any apparent conflict of interest. As we discuss below in more detail, the notes of the FPI was taken by Mr Tallis who also had no conflict of interest, and we accept that the note taken was accurate. Both he and Ms Norcop considered that the questions asked were fair and gave Mr Schumacher ample opportunity to explain his background and experience. 133. The eventual decision taken by Mr Matkar-Cox on 18 June was taken by him in full knowledge of the connection between Ms Grandfield and Ms Thompson and he was assisted at that stage by Ms Norcop. It was evident from the very careful consideration they gave this matter that had they had any concerns about the role played by Ms Grandfield they would have raised them. Mr Matkar-Cox was more senior than Ms Grandfield in any event. The decision by Ofsted to ask Ms Grandfield to step out of the process was sensible, even in the light of the finding they made that there was no conflict of interest. 134. In our view, the appearance of a conflict of interest in Ms Grandfield’s role does not taint the whole of the decision -making process. Unless the evidence that she collated in the FPI could be shown to have been affected by that apparent bias, or the information she otherwise gathered could be shown to be partial, it does not preclude Ofsted relying on it8. For reasons we explore now, we do not consider that there was anything inappropriate in the preparation for the FPI or the way it was conducted. 8 ASM Shipping of India v Harris (2007) Times, 6 August. In that case, the bias of one member of the Tribunal did not taint the other members of the panel. The fit person interview 135. Ofsted rely on the content of Mr Schumacher’s fit person interview as evidence that he did not meet the standard required under the regulations. Mr Schumacher’s own position was that the interview did not give him an appropriate opportunity to demonstrate his skills and asserts that the interview record is not accurate or fair. 136. We accept that Mr Tallis attended the FPI interview as this was a standard practice of Ofsted when there were concerns about managers, to have a second inspector present to take a note. Having heard Mr Tallis’ evidence, we are satisfied that he took a detailed note of the conversation, typed straight into a One Note document and not captured on paper. He said that the notes were available on the system afterwards and could have been amended but he did not see why anyone would do so, and he said his own review of the document for the purposes of his witness statement did not suggest to him that it had been changed in any way. Mrs Schumacher made a number of suggestions that the document had been changed and asked previously for metadata in relation to it. But we consider this suggestion far-fetched and unlikely. Mrs Schumacher said at one point that the document had clearly been changed because why else would someone make some of the comments that Mr Schumacher appeared to have done in the interview. But that line of questioning was revealing, since it appeared to accept that if the notes were accurate, Mr Schumacher’s comments in them were damaging to his case. 137. We also accept that Mr Tallis intervened in the interview, in the way recorded, because he was so surprised at the comment made by Mr Schumacher about two different ‘shiny audits’. He said that comment had been very concerning because it suggested that there was a deliberate attempt to conceal problems from the regulator and external scrutiny. Although various attempts were also made to unearth some conflict of interest for Mr Tallis, in the end we are satisfied that there was nothing of this nature established. 138. In his witness statement, Mr Schumacher said that the FPI was not a ‘true and accurate account of the discussion’ held with him on 15 April 2025, but although this point is repeated a number of times in Mr Schumacher’s evidence, it is notable that Mr Schumacher does not at any point set out what it is that he considers to be inaccurate, what it is that he didn’t say that is contained within it, or conversely anything he says he said which was not captured. In his written representations, at the end of May, at a point when Mr Schumacher had not seen a copy of the notes themselves he said that he had concerns about the conduct and impartiality of the interview because of the conflict, but also because the interview ‘disproportionately’ focused on a personal event from 2016 and did not allow opportunity to discuss later improvements. He said that it was unfair to suggest he wasn’t reflective, and he said he wasn’t given chance to discuss his experiences at the various homes that he worked at. At one point, Mr Schumacher does accept ‘that I could have more explicitly articulated how I had learned from past experience’ (bundle A, page 163) and sets out some things that he could have said, but didn’t. 139. With respect to Mr Schumacher’s knowledge of safeguarding legislation and practice, Mr Schumacher himself said that whilst he ‘may not’ have articulated every relevant statutory reference with the clarity or depth expected, this did not reflect the breadth of his knowledge, the quality of his practice or his long- standing commitment to safeguarding children. 140. It is also notable that Mr Schumacher did not deny making the statement about ‘shiny audits’ which was the subject of much discussion at the hearing (though he denied it had the meaning or the implications that Ofsted drew from it). Mrs Schumacher came close at one point to alleging that this had not been said, but it is clear from the representations (bundle A, page 149) that Mr Schumacher accepted he had said it but said that it was misinterpreted. He said ‘my use of the term was not an admission of producing falsified documentation for external use, but rather a critical reflection on the culture I encountered at Adecyn Homes. Specifically, there was a prevailing tendency among senior leaders to suppress or downplay concerns despite clear evidence of service shortfalls.’ 141. Mr Schumacher said that with respect to the time he spent as Registered Manager at Oaklands he was not given the opportunity at the FPI to talk about this or to explain what reflection he had undertaken (see for example, bundle A page 154). He said something similar about his time at Adecyn Homes. Mr Schumacher also complained that his plans to manage the homes effectively were not reviewed at the FPI either, or otherwise meaningfully explored. He accepted that his Fit Person Questionnaire (a document we were never given) could have more explicitly articulated how he had learned from past experience. 142. The evidence of all of the Ofsted witnesses was that Mr Schumacher had been given every opportunity to make his case. Ms Norcop said ‘our review of the questions posed in relation to the points in his representations, evidenced that he had been asked questions across a range of topics, there was no undue focus and he was given opportunity to demonstrate his understanding and skills which he had failed to do through his responses’ (bundle A, page 217). Ms Norcop said that she would have conducted the interview in the same way as Ms Grandfield had and she did not consider that she would have reached any other conclusion. 143. Mr Tallis’ witness statement also set out the ways in which he considered that Mr Schumacher’s interview had failed to meet the relevant standards. We do not repeat all of those here. Mr Matkar-Cox’s evidence included that Mr Schumacher had failed to show sufficient reflection on previous shortfalls, because he said that his only area for development was in not oversharing personal details and to keep closed his social media accounts. He said that Mr Schumacher demonstrated little knowledge of risk management or of safeguarding legislation. 144. The difficulty with Mr Schumacher’s position on all of this is two-fold. Firstly, we have no legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of the note of the meeting. It was taken contemporaneously by an experienced inspector who was not leading the interview, and so could focus on the note taking, and he (and Ms Grandfield) are clear that the notes presented to us had not been amended. We accept that no one would have any reason or motivation to do so. A charge of, effective fabrication or falsification which the Appellant’s case came close to asserting, requires significant evidence, given the seriousness of the charge, and there was no credible evidence of that before us. 145. But secondly, the FPI is an important part of the application process. Mr Schumacher knew this as he had been a Registered Manager before. The standard wording at the start of the interview, recorded in the pro forma completed by Mr Tallis makes clear that the interview is important and it says ‘this is your opportunity to demonstrate how you are suitable for the role…’. We also note that Mr Schumacher was given a number of opportunities to take a break and gather his thoughts. He chose not to take them. He was asked at the end if there was anything else he wanted to say. He said no. Ofsted, as a regulator, can only proceed on the basis of the evidence before them and on the knowledge that someone can demonstrate in response to questions. Mr Schumacher was an experienced leader of children’s homes. It was not unreasonable, in our view, for them to expect that he had a good knowledge of the regulatory framework within which the homes operated, including relevant safeguarding legislation. Indeed, given the experiences that Mr Schumacher had had in various homes by then it might have been expected that such issues were uppermost in his knowledge. But he said that his mind had gone blank, and he refused a break. When asked about the legislation, his first reaction to this was to ask about audits. His answers on reducing risk to children talked about keeping them busy. His answers to a range of other safeguarding and practical response questions are also recorded. But Ofsted’s view was that these lacked depth and that he failed to demonstrate reflection on his previous experiences and shortfalls. 146. We have considered carefully the suggestions by Mr Schumacher that he was not given the opportunity to explain in detail his experience at each of the homes; that there was an undue focus on events from 2016; that there was no consideration of the materials he had brought with him to the interview. But taking all of the evidence before us in the round, we accept that the notes were accurate and that they indicated that Mr Schumacher was given multiple opportunities to explain his experience and learning from previous employments. He was asked several times ‘have you taken any learning from these inspections?’. Mr Schumacher’s answers were limited. 147. We appreciate that Mr Schumacher was ill during the hearing before us. But we had no oral evidence from him on any of these issues, and we did not have his account of what it was in the FPI record that was inaccurate. His evidence was untested in cross-examination. On balance, we prefer the evidence of Ofsted that there was real cause for concern by the end of the interview. We find that Mr Schumacher gave limited answers, showed little reflection on his experience, or on risk management and did not appear to understand the legislative framework. He did not even appear to understand what a Statement of Purpose was and could not articulate it. His comment about shiny audits gave legitimate cause for concern that whether or not Mr Schumacher was also identifying shortfalls in practice in his audits, his audits were not necessarily always showing the complete picture. Mr Schumacher’s later explanation of his intended meaning is unconvincing. Issue 3: The evidence of the Operational Plan 148. In his appeal document (bundle A, page 25) Mr Schumacher indicated that he had submitted a copy of his operational plan with representations made in response to the Notice of Proposal and said that this was not sufficiently considered or that he did not have an opportunity for this to be fairly assessed as evidence of his fitness and suitability. 149. Mr Schumacher said in his written representations that he had submitted a detailed Operational Implementation Plan as part of the FPI which he said outlined his leadership strategy, staffing approach, risk management systems and child-focused care model and said that despite its relevance and depth, no reference had been made to it in the FPI or in wider conclusions then set out in the NOP (see bundle A, page 147). Mr Schumacher said that the plan ‘directly evidences my fitness to manage Heartfilled House. It reflects foresight, safeguarding awareness, regulatory compliance and a structured approach to leadership that prioritises the welfare of children. It also demonstrates my ability to implement systems that support high-quality care, staff accountability and continuous improvement…’. And Mr Schumacher asked that it be considered as part of the response. The Operational Plan (bundle B, page 92-94) was supported by an extensive array of other documents and systems (bundle A, pages 860-1066). 150. Ofsted responded to this as part of the Notice of Decision (bundle A, page 178) and having rehearsed again what Mr Schumacher said it showed, indicated that their own view was that it was limited. They said that ‘whilst there are examples of some good practice approaches, the plan lacks depth and does not provide clear evidence of the systems that you have references in your representations’. They concluded that this did not provide assurance of the impact that he would have as leader and manager of Heartfilled House. 151. Ofsted repeated these observations in their written witness evidence, and both Mr Matkar-Cox and Ms Norcop dealt with this. At paragraph 20 of his statement, Mr Matkar-Cox gave examples of things that he considered were missing from the plan even though they had been referred to in the representations as being part of the systems Mr Schumacher proposed to use. Mr Matkar-Cox mentioned an incomplete child referral process, children’s plans and risk assessments and the monitoring of health and safety and said that these were significant omissions particularly in the light of the Appellant’s employment history. Ms Norcop’s statement said that the plan did not show that Mr Schumacher had a full understanding of the previous shortfalls in practice in his employment history nor that he had a clear plan to address them. 152. In his supplementary witness statement to the Tribunal, Mr Schumacher refers again to the fact that he had submitted his management tools as part of the written representations in the Guardian Homes litigation, and also that he had given them to Ms Grandfield who had viewed them as part of the PFI process (bundle B, page 642). There was however little other evidence in the appeal documentation indicating what Mr Schumacher’s position was on the criticisms made of his Operational Plan and this was not referred to directly either in the skeleton argument or in Mrs Schumacher’s closing submissions. 153. We accept that in fact Ms Grandfield did not look at this document during the FPI. She said as much in her oral evidence and said that it was not that kind of interview; and Mr Schumacher’s own written evidence indicates that it was first made available as part of his own fitness decision only in hard copy at the meeting on 15 April 2025. We do not think that Mr Schumacher can rely on the fact of it having been provided to another inspector at another time as part of representations on behalf of Guardian Homes to indicate that Ofsted should have considered it before then. To the extent Mr Schumacher wanted it to be considered as part of the overall decision -making process, it was plainly considered by Mr Matkar-Cox and Ms Norcop as part of the consideration of his representations because it is dealt with in the Notice of Decision. 154. But in our view it is curious, if Mr Schumacher considers that this document and its supporting materials are direct evidence of fitness for all the reasons he gives, that he did not as part of this appeal engage more thoroughly with the critique of the documents given by Ofsted, or the omissions they said it had. He did not expand further on the content of the documents to show how they demonstrated that Ofsted were wrong about this, or to explain why their critique was incorrect; and in our view although the documents are extensive, they are said only to be ‘examples’ of the documentation that would be in place at Heartfilled House and they are largely static, somewhat basic paper- based processes. 155. In the absence of more detailed responses from the Appellant, and without the benefit of oral evidence from him on these issues, we accept the criticisms of Ofsted that the documents provide limited evidence of Mr Schumacher’s fitness. We do not say that they are of no value- Ofsted themselves accept that they contained evidence of some good practices. We accept that too. But we also accept that in light of the failings previously identified in some of the settings in which Mr Schumacher had worked, and for which he had been directly responsible at times, there was an onus on him to evidence clearly that his practice and proposed systems had developed in response to experience and learning, and the absence of this tended rather to show the opposite. 156. On balance, we accept that the evidence the Operational Plan and supporting materials provided with respect to Mr Schumacher’s fitness to be a Registered Manager was mixed at best. It showed some elements of good practice in places, but also demonstrated a rather basic approach and a lack of reflective learning and development from previous experience in residential children’s home settings. It was plainly considered by Ofsted in some detail in their decision-making process. We do not think criticism of Ofsted on this basis therefore is valid. They engaged fairly with the document and gave a balanced critique of it in light of what Mr Schumacher said it demonstrated. Issue 4: Alleged threat of violence made towards a shareholder of Guardian Homes 157. The allegation that Mr Schumacher has made threats of violence towards a shareholder of his former employer is a very recent development dealt with only in the witness evidence of Mr Matkar-Cox (bundle A page 126- 127) and Ms Norcop (bundle A, page 219-220). The allegation suggests that after Mr Schumacher was invited to a disciplinary interview by Guardian Homes he telephoned a shareholder and made a threat to knock them out. According to another director of Guardian Homes this allegation was reported to police. Although the evidence from the Ofsted inspectors was that Guardian Homes intended to keep them updated on the progress of any police investigation, no additional evidence of this incident was put before us, nor was it suggested that the allegation had gone anywhere or been substantiated. It was not referred to in Ofsted’s oral evidence or in their closing submissions and Mrs Schumacher confined herself to noting- correctly- that no reference was made to this in the email which Guardian Homes sent to Mr Schumacher terminating his employment (bundle B, page 897) nor in their email to Ofsted confirming the same (bundle A page 213). 158. Ofsted rely on this alleged incident as evidence going to good character and integrity; but we take account of the fact that there was no direct statement available to us of what had occurred, and the statements of Mr Matkar-Cox and Ms Norcop are multiple hearsay. We were unaware of whether the allegations had gone anywhere and they occurred in the context of an emerging employment law dispute between Mr Schumacher and the company in question. In our view, and even without the input of Mr Schumacher himself on what may have occurred, we do not consider it necessary to make separate findings on this incident and whether it occurred, in light of our wider findings above. Issue 5: the absence of a Registered Manager position 159. In our view, this issue was partially dealt with at the Strike Out hearing on 30 September 2025, and we agree with the conclusion reached that the mere fact that there is no longer a home for Mr Schumacher to be registered to should not preclude a full appeal proceeding. 160. But the issue of what meaningful remedy could be given to Mr Schumacher in the event that his appeal was successful was discussed at the hearing, and we therefore make findings on it. 161. As we set out above, s 21(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 permits the Tribunal to confirm the registration decision or to decide that it shall not have effect. It appeared to us at the outset that it would be conceptually difficult for us to declare that the decision of Ofsted should have no effect since the logical outcome of that would be either that Ofsted would have to register Mr Schumacher as Registered Manager or it would have to rerun the FPI and application process. The first of these was not possible, because Heartfilled House is itself no longer registered; and the second of these appeared unlikely to offer any practical benefit because it would be necessary for Ofsted to again refuse the registration, whatever the outcome of the FPI, on the limited basis that the home did not exist. However, during argument, Mrs Schumacher persuaded us that if the decision of Ofsted were set aside, Mr Schumacher would immediately withdraw his application for registration and the process would fall away. Although Mr Schumacher would not achieve registration for any specific children’s home, the setting aside of the refusal would remove the consequences of the Children Act 1989 from Mr Schumacher. We were therefore satisfied that there was a real and tangible benefit to Mr Schumacher in proceeding with the appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a children’s home. We would not therefore have dismissed the appeal on this basis had we agreed with Mr Schumacher on the other elements of his appeal. Is Mr Schumacher a ‘fit’ person within the meaning of Regulation 28 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015? 162. We have had regard to all of the factual matters put before us as part of this appeal and we have conscientiously weighed up the evidence we have heard and read. We have had regard to the requirements of regulation 28 as to the requirements of fitness to be a manger of a children’s home. We have considered all of the findings we have made above, and all of the evidence presented to us both orally and in the bundle. We have considered carefully the submissions of the parties made to us in writing and at the end of the hearing. We remind ourselves that it is for Mr Schumacher to establish on the balance of probabilities that he is a fit person within the meaning of the Regulations. 163. On the balance of probabilities, we are not satisfied that Mr Schumacher has discharged the burden under regulation 28 to demonstrate that he is a fit person to manage a children’s home. On the basis of his employment history, regulatory and inspection history, application and fit person interview for the regulated position and having regard to all of the material he and Ofsted put before us, we are not satisfied that he has the appropriate experience, qualification and skills to manage the home effectively and lead the care of children. He led or was senior in the management of multiple homes that rarely, if ever, achieved overall good ratings from Ofsted. He failed to explain as part of this appeal in anything like the necessary depth why the judgments reached could not be attributed to him at all, even in the light of his roles. We are satisfied that Ofsted gave credit for his role at Adecyn Homes but were right to draw the link and parallels between the issues at the various homes. To the extent some good ratings were achieved, these were not sustained. Ofsted are right to expect that the standard of care for children in these homes should be consistently good. We are satisfied that the FPI was conducted fairly and in an appropriate manner that was unaffected by the apparent bias of Ms Grandfield in the process. Ofsted’s decision -making process taken as a whole was not affected by any apparent bias. Ms Norcop, Mr Tallis and Mr Matkar-Cox were satisfied with the conduct of the FPI. We agree, and we find that to the extent the FPI records that Mr Schumacher gave poor answers that lacked depth or sufficient knowledge, this was accurate. 164. We also agree that there are unresolved questions as to his integrity in light of the comments about shiny audits. Accordingly, we agree that the refusal of registration as a Registered Manager was the appropriate response. This appeal will be dismissed. 165. As a result of the confirmation of the refusal to register Mr Schumacher as Registered Manager of Heartfilled House, the consequences that flow from section 65(A1) and (A2) and s.68 of the Children Act 1989, as amended will also apply. Decision The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Chief Inspector of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, dated 18 June 2025 to refuse Mr Karl Schumacher registration as Registered Manager of Heartfilled House Children’s Home is confirmed. Tribunal Judge S. A. Trueman First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date Issued: 24 February 2026 43