England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

MM v General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 0649(SW) (11 April 2006)

MM -v- The General Social Care Council [2006] 649.SW
Before: Mr John Reddish (Chairman) Ms Margaret Halstead Ms Caroline Joffe

Hearing date: 6 April 2006

Appeal

On 26 January 2006 the Appellant purported to appeal, under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000, against the decision of the General Social Care Council, made on 7 December 2005, to refuse his application for inclusion on the register of social workers.

Application to strike out

On 30 March 2006 the Respondent applied for an order that the appeal be struck out under regulation 4A of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002.

Hearing

At the hearing Miss Eleanor Grey of Counsel, instructed by Mr Martin Smith of Field Fisher Waterhouse, represented the Respondent. The Appellant appeared and represented himself.

Facts

The material facts found by the Tribunal were as follows:

1. On 9 December 2005 the Respondent sent a Notice of Decision of the Registration Committee to the Appellant informing him that the Committee had decided to refuse his application for registration in the part of the Social Care Register relating to social workers on the basis that he had not satisfied the Committee that he met the criterion set out in section 58 of the 2000 Act with regard to his good character and conduct.

2. The Notice of Decision stated that the Appellant had a right to appeal to the Tribunal against this decision no later than 28 days from service of the Notice upon him.

3. The Appellant received the Notice not later than 12 December 2005 and calculated that he had until 9 January 2006 to lodge an appeal.

4. On 12 December the Appellant telephoned the Tribunal requesting an appeal form. The Secretary sent the Appellant an appeal form together with Guidance on How to Appeal.

5. The Appellant received the appeal pack on 16 December 2005.

6. On or about 20 December 2005 the Appellant travelled to Uganda to obtain, amongst other things, documents from Makerere University in Kampala which he perceived that he needed in order to substantiate his appeal.

7. On 9 January 2006 Ms Kankay Hubbard, acting on behalf of the Appellant, sent, by facsimile transmission, a letter to the Respondent in which she said that the Appellant would be leaving Uganda and arriving in the United Kingdom on 10 January and that he intended to "submit his appeal outside the deadline" on 11 January 2006. Ms Hubbard annexed an undated letter from the Appellant addressed to "The President Care Standards" in which he purported to explain his inability to provide his university transcript and said that he had "changed his flight back to the United Kingdom to Monday the 9^th January 2006".

8. On 19 January 2006 the Appellant telephoned the Tribunal. He said that he had received the Notice of Decision from the Respondent on 10 December 2005 and had received the appeal pack on 16 December 2005. He explained that he had been to Uganda "to get his certificate and other papers" and that, because of political problems and riots in Uganda, he had been unable to return on time. The Appellant also said that his representative, Ms Hubbard, had written to the Tribunal on 10 January 2006 to explain the situation. The Tribunal had no record of any such letter.

9. On 19 January 2006 the Appellant informed the Tribunal that his representative had sent the letter to Mr Kevin Field and gave the telephone number to which the facsimile transmission was sent. Mr Field is not an officer of the Tribunal. The telephone number supplied by the Appellant is not a number used by the Tribunal. That number is used by the Respondent for the receipt of facsimile transmissions.

10. On 26 January 2006 the Tribunal received an undated Appeal Application in Form B completed by the Appellant enclosing his reasons for appeal.

11. On 23 February 2006 the solicitors acting for Respondent delivered a response to the appeal in which they said that the appeal was lodged out of time and that the Respondent did not consent to time being extended. They asked the Tribunal "to decline the Appellant's request for time to lodge the Appeal being extended".

12. On 24 February 2006 the President directed the Appellant to respond to the application to strike out his appeal and to inform the Tribunal whether he wished to make oral representations on the matter.

13. In a letter to the Tribunal dated 9 March 2006 the Appellant said that he wished to give oral evidence.

The law

14. Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 6 to the 2002 Regulations provides that an application by a person who wishes to appeal under section 68 of the 2000 Act against a decision of the Council under Part IV of that Act must be received by the Secretary no later than 28 days after the date of service on the applicant of notice of the decision.

15. Regulation 35 provides that the President or the nominated chairman may extend any time limit mentioned in the Regulations but regulation 35(3) provides that this regulation does not apply to the time limit provided for initiating an appeal mentioned in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6.

16. Regulation 4A provides that the President or the nominated chairman may at any time strike out an appeal on the grounds that it is made otherwise than in accordance with the provision in the Regulations for initiating an appeal.

Conclusions with reasons

17. The time limit for the initiation of an appeal by the Appellant expired on 9 January 2006. The Appellant was aware of that.

18. The Appellant did not initiate his appeal until 26 January 2006.

19. The communication with the Respondent made on behalf of the Appellant on 9 January cannot be construed as the initiation of an appeal. Indeed, the Appellant's representative expressly said in that communication that the Appellant intended to submit his appeal after the expiration of the time limit and to seek permission to do so.

20. The nominated chairman has no discretion to extend the time limit for the initiation of this appeal.

21. The case falls squarely within regulation 4A and must be regarded as misconceived.

22. The Tribunal therefore decided to strike out the appeal.

23. The decision of the Tribunal was unanimous.

Order

The appeal shall be struck out.

John Reddish

(Nominated Chairman)

Margaret Halstead

Caroline Joffe

11 April 2006