England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Nwokoro v General Social Care Council [2007] EWCST 1186(SW) (21^st July 2008)

Christopher Onyeka Nwokoro
-v-
General Social Care Council [2007] 1086.SW
-Before-
Mr Simon Oliver (Deputy President) Ms Susan Last Mr Andrew Wilson
Decision

Heard on 14^th April 2008 at the Civil Justice Centre, Manchester

Representation

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

For the Respondent: Ms E Grey of counsel.

Appeal

1. This is an appeal by the Appellant under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the decision of the Respondent to refuse to register him as a social worker.

Preliminary Matters

2. The Appellant was due to attend the hearing, which had been set down for two days. He had previously taken part in a telephone directions conference in respect of this appeal. When the Appellant had not attended by 10.30 we asked our London clerks to make enquiries to see if the Appellant could be contacted. Despite their best efforts it was not possible to contact the Appellant although we were satisfied that he had received notice of the hearing. We decided to proceed to hear the case in his absence.
3. We decided at the end of the case that, given our decision, we would agree to the request of the Respondent to lift the restricted reporting order.
4. The Respondent asked us to admit 3 statements as late evidence. These had been sent to the Appellant and we agreed to admit them.

The Law

5. Section 58(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides that the GSCC must refuse to register the Appellant if it is not satisfied that he is of good character. Further, section 58(3) provides that the GSCC must similarly refuse an application where an Appellant does not satisfy any requirements as to conduct and competence which it might by rules impose.
6. Section 57(1) of the 2000 Act provides that an application for registration must be made in accordance with any rules made by the GSCC. In this regard Rule 4(3)(a) of the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005 further provides that an appellant must provide in connection with his application evidence as to: (i) his good character (as it relates to his fitness to practise the work expected of a social care worker), including endorsements from an employer or where the Appellant is self employed or not in employment, from a social care employer or other person acceptable to the GSCC as being fit to provide such an endorsement; (ii) good conduct; and (iv) competence.
7. The onus is on the appellant to satisfy the Registration Committee of his competence and good character (Jones –v- Commission for Social Care Inspection [2004] EWCA Civ 1713; [2005] 1 WLR 2461). The same test applies before this Tribunal.

The Evidence heard

8. Given the conclusion we have reached and the comments we are making at the end of this decision, it is appropriate that we set out in detail the steps that the GSCC have taken in this matter and the comprehensive deceit practiced by the Appellant.
9. On 9 June 2005, the GSCC received the Appellant's application for registration. The Appellant stated that in July 2002 he had been awarded a Diploma in Social Work by Lagos State University, Nigeria.
10. On the same day, the GSCC wrote to the Appellant to acknowledge receipt of his application. The GSCC stated that it was unable to continue processing his application because he had not provided a verified birth certificate or alternative suitable identification documentation, nor had he completed page 10 of the application form.
11. On 10 June 2005, the GSCC wrote to the Appellant to confirm it had received instructions in his application form to collect payment for his application by direct debit. The GSCC advised the Appellant that it would collect £155 from his account on or around 1 July 2005 and that it would continue to collect £30 on or around this date each year for the next two years.
12. On 21 July 2005, the GSCC wrote to the Appellant to remind him that it required two forms of identification from him, one being a copy of his passport, which it had received, and the other being a copy of his birth certificate. He was also asked to send the correct fee within 14 days in order to continue with the application process.
13. On the same day, the GSCC wrote a separate letter to the Appellant regarding payment of the fee for his application by direct debit. The GSCC stated that it had been notified by its bankers that there was a problem with the direct debit instructions the Appellant had provided. The GSCC's bank had advised it that payment was rejected. The GSCC enclosed a new direct debit form for completion and return by the Appellant within 14 days of the date of its letter.
14. On 6 September 2005, the GSCC received a telephone call from the Appellant. He advised the GSCC that he would send the information requested regarding his application to the GSCC "tomorrow".
15. On 14 September 2005, the GSCC wrote to the Human Resources/Personnel Department at BS Social Care. BS Social Care are a social care employment agency that the Appellant had registered with. In its letter, the GSCC stated that it had been unable to continue processing the Appellant's application because the Appellant had not provided the GSCC with a copy of his birth certificate and he had not completed page 10 of his application form. On 14 September 2005, the GSCC wrote a letter to the Appellant. It reminded him that it was still unable to process his application because he had not provided the required identification documentation and page 10 of his application form had not been completed. On 5 January 2006, the GSCC received notification that on 19^th December 2005, the Appellant had cancelled his instruction for direct debit payment.
16. On 20 March 2006, the GSCC telephoned the Appellant. The Appellant stated that he had his Part I application form and that he was going to have it endorsed by the director of his recruitment agency. He stated that he would have a copy of his birth certificate verified by his endorser. In addition, the Appellant stated that he would also send a cheque for £155 with his application along with a further direct debit form for future payments. The Appellant advised the GSCC that it would receive this information by 27 March 2006.
17. On 28 April 2006, the GSCC wrote to the Appellant. In its letter the GSCC stated that it had still not received Part I of the Appellant's application form, nor a verified copy of his birth certificate, nor payment of £155. The GSCC stated that unless the GSCC received a response to its letter by 25 May 2006, it would take the following action:

"1. We will consider whether the GSCC is minded to refuse your registration;

2. We will consider whether there should be conditions imposed on your registration."

It stated that if the GSCC did not hear from him, his application would be referred to a Registration Committee for a final decision.

18. On 11 May 2006, the GSCC was contacted by Flow Recruitment Agency ("Flow"). They indicated that they had an issue with the Appellant and that they thought the employer with which he was currently placed would be sending through a complaint to the GSCC.
19. On 12 May 2006, the GSCC received a telephone call from Stockport County Council ("Stockport"). Stockport stated that the Appellant had falsified references from them which it believed he had done in order to seek employment. It stated that the Appellant had been dismissed by Stockport due to performance issues, but it had later found out that the Appellant had also falsified documents in order to work with them in the first place. Stockport advised the GSCC that it would write with full details of these allegations.
20. On 15 May 2006, the GSCC received a letter dated 12 May 2006 from Mrs Barbara Bowman, Personnel Manager, Together Trust. In her letter, Mrs Bowman stated that she was writing to inform the GSCC of concerns which Together Trust had about the Appellant, who was an ex-employee. Mrs Bowman stated that on 19 April 2006, Mr S Whaites from the Big Life Company ("Big Life") contacted the Together Trust Personnel Department in order to verify a reference for the Appellant completed by a Paul Wright, Team Manager with the Together Trust. Mrs Bowman's letter stated that the Together Trust did not employ anyone by the name of 'Paul Wright', nor did they employ anyone in the capacity of Team Manager. A copy of the reference was sent to the Together Trust from the Big Life and it appeared to the Together Trust that the copy letter provided was not a genuine reference. Mrs Bowman further stated that the Together Trust had a policy not to provide speculative or unsolicited references. In addition, Mrs Bowman stated that on 10 May 2006, Sunni Dhadwar from Flow Recruitment and Amanda Perraton from Stockport Social Services had contacted the Together Trust Personnel Department to verify a reference on the Appellant. On further investigation, according to Mrs Bowman, this was the same reference given to Big Life. Mrs Bowman stated in her letter that the Together Trust's solicitors had been instructed to pursue the matter with the Appellant.
21. In her letter, Mrs Bowman stated that the Appellant had been employed as a Night Care Worker with the Together Trust from 14 October 2005 to 24 March 2006. The Trust's policy was that all employees were required to complete a satisfactory 12 month probationary period. The Appellant had not performed as expected, and even though he was still in his probationary period, following a Probationary Review Meeting on 10 March 2006, the decision was made by the Together Trust not to confirm him in post. As a result, the Appellant's employment with the Together Trust was terminated. Mrs Bowman set out the following performance issues which had led to the termination of the Appellant's employment:

(a) poor time keeping and reliability in terms of the shifts he was required to undertake;

(b) incomplete tasks whilst on duty, including reading and understanding the young people's risk assessments and undertaking the domestic chores required of a Night Care Worker; and

(c) poor interaction with the young people and persistent use of his personal mobile phone whilst on duty.

22. Enclosed with Mrs Bowman's letter was a copy of the reference purporting to be from a Paul Wright, Team Manager. The reference is dated 30 March 2006, on Together Trust headed notepaper. It was sent via fax from U-Print on 4 April 2006 at 10:05 am. The reference states:

"re Mr Christopher Nwokoro.

With reference to your request, Christopher Nwokoro is a relief social worker with Together Trust since October 2005 till date. For the period that he has worked with this organisation he has proven to be of high standard with sincere passion towards children and young people positive future and needs. The policy of the organisation is well understood by him. He is an easygoing fellow with good interpersonal relationship with staffs and other agencies, with a high initiative towards problem solving. Christopher is a fellow to rely on and he carried out all his responsibilities to an impressive standard. I strongly believe you will enjoy his services if eventually employed.

Yours sincerely

Paul Wright

Team Manager"

23. On 11 July 2006, the GSCC telephoned Naomi Wood, HR Assistant at Stockport. The GSCC asked that Ms Wood identify who had contacted the GSCC on 12 June [sic] 2006 regarding the Appellant.
24. On 12 July 2006, Ms Wood telephoned the GSCC and stated that she had not been able to identify anyone from Stockport who had contacted the GSCC regarding the Appellant. Nor could she in fact identify the Appellant as ever having been employed on a substantive basis or through an agency with Stockport
25. On 25 July 2006, the GSCC telephoned BS Social Care and was informed that the Appellant had not worked for BS Social Care since July 2005. Natalie, one of the BS Social Care staff stated that the Appellant had several placements but had not worked as a qualified social worker. She had no idea what the Appellant was doing or his whereabouts.
26. On the same day, the GSCC telephoned the Appellant. There was no reply and the GSCC left an urgent message for the Appellant. The Appellant telephoned the GSCC at 14:50 hours that same day. After confirming his identity, the GSCC told the Appellant that it had several questions for him. The GSCC asked the Appellant where he was currently working. The Appellant stated that he had changed address and gave the new one. The GSCC told the Appellant that he needed to notify it in writing of his change of address together with details of his last employer. The Appellant was advised that once this information was received, the GSCC would write regarding any outstanding issues.
27. The GSCC tried to make contact with the Appellant on 5 September 2006, 14 September 2006 and on 15 September 2006. On 18 September 2006, the GSCC telephoned Big Life. The GSCC spoke to Sean Whaites, who stated that he remembered dealing with the Appellant while he was responsible for temporary desk staff. Mr Whaites said that the Appellant had applied for a temporary job working with homeless young people and that he had produced a reference which appeared to be from the Together Trust. Mr Whaites said that as it was considered to be good practice, he tried to contact the author of the reference. On doing so, someone from the Together Trust advised him that they did not employ anyone with the name on the reference. As a result, Mr Whaites said that no further action was taken regarding the Appellant's request for employment, and no further contact was made. According to Mr Whaites, the question of a possible false reference was not discussed with the Appellant.
28. On 18 September 2006, the GSCC telephoned Stockport and spoke to Amanda Amesbury. Ms Amesbury stated that she remembered interviewing the Appellant and appointing him as a registered social worker. She confirmed that the Appellant produced a Certificate of Registration confirming that he was registered by the GSCC. According to Ms Amesbury, before the Appellant was appointed she had misgivings about his communication skills and he was therefore appointed on a trial basis. After two to three weeks, another new member of staff came to her and said that he was concerned about the Appellant and that there could be child protection issues, as the Appellant was sharing information about children with other children. According to Ms Amesbury, as a result of this information, the Appellant was told to leave employment with Stockport. During her conversation with the GSCC, Ms Amesbury stated that as far as she was aware, there was no copy of the Registration Certificate the Appellant had provided, but all the paperwork could be requested from Mrs Gani Martins. Ms Amesbury further stated that she thought that the Appellant had come to Stockport through Semester Recruitment Agency ("Semester").
29. On 18 September 2006, the GSCC telephoned Semester and spoke to someone called Alex, who confirmed that the Appellant had registered with them. Alex informed the GSCC that further details would be provided once agreement had been obtained from her manager. Later that day, Nicola Jenkinson telephoned the GSCC from Semester. Ms Jenkinson stated that although the Appellant had registered with the Agency, he had not been placed in any position and that he was made fully aware that he could not practise as a registered social worker. According to Ms Jenkinson, on the Appellant's application form he had written that he had been awarded an MA from Salford University in 2005. Ms Jenkinson advised the GSCC that she would confirm this information in writing.
30. Ms Jenkinson made a further telephone call to the GSCC that day, in which she stated that in addition to his MA from Salford University, which she said the Appellant completed from 2003 to 2005, the Appellant had a Diploma in Social Work from Lagos State University, awarded in 2002. Ms Jenkinson further informed the GSCC that the Appellant's work history was as follows:

•     January to October 2005, Warrington Social Services Under 12 Team, contact name Fon Roberts;

•    October 2005 to January 2006, Denbighshire Social Services Children's Team;

•    January 2006 to date [as far as she was aware], Inverness Social Services Children's Team.

31. On 18 September 2006, the GSCC wrote to Mrs Gani Martins at Stockport requesting copies of any documents which were held by Mrs Martins regarding the Appellant in connection with his application to join the Social Care Register.
32. On 19 September 2006, the GSCC telephoned Warrington Social Services ("Warrington") and was advised that it would need to make a request for employment details in writing. Following that telephone conversation, on 19 September 2006 the GSCC sent a written request to Warrington for confirmation of whether the Appellant had worked within the Social Services Department between January and October 2005. If the Appellant had worked in the Department, Warrington were asked to confirm the Appellant's job title, the dates on which he worked and whether there were any issues concerning his practice.
33. On the same day, the GSCC made a telephone call to Inverness Social Services ("Highland Council") and spoke to the Duty Referral Officer on duty that day. She took contact details for the GSCC and advised it that she would be back in touch once she had had an opportunity to check the information requested.
34. The GSCC also attempted to contact Denbighshire Social Services ("Denbighshire") on 19 September 2006, however, there was no answer on the telephone and no message was left. The GSCC then made a written request on 19 September 2006, sent by fax, to Stephen Anderson at Denbighshire. The GSCC requested confirmation from Mr Anderson of whether the Appellant had worked for the Children's Team between October 2005 and January 2006 and if he had, whether Mr Anderson could confirm his job title, the dates on which he worked and whether there were any issues concerning his practice.
35. On 19 September 2006, the GSCC received a telephone call from Kerry Thomas from Warrington who explained that she had no record of a Mr C Nwokoro on her payroll.
36. On 22 September 2006 the GSCC received a telephone call from Highland Council, Inverness. Highland Council confirmed that the Appellant had worked for it through an agency and that there had been issues regarding his performance, as a result of which he was asked to leave. The GSCC was informed that Wendy Alman had written a report regarding the Appellant and that this report had been sent to the GSCC. GSCC stated that there was nothing in the file from Highland Council and that the GSCC had contacted it as a result of investigations of a complaint by another authority.
37. On 26 September 2006, the GSCC telephoned Wendy Alman at Highland Council. Ms Alman confirmed that the Appellant had worked for them in Inverness earlier in the year as an agency worker. According to Ms Alman, the Appellant had been asked to leave following timesheet irregularities, when it was discovered that either he or someone he knew was forging the signature to confirm hours worked. In addition, there had been concerns about his written work, contribution at meetings and certain days that he claimed to have worked but could not be accounted for. According to Ms Alman, although English was not the Appellant's first language, allowances had been made. Ms Alman stated that she thought she had notified the GSCC regarding this but was not sure where she had sent her report. Ms Alman advised that she would make enquiries and either send a copy of the documents to the GSCC again or advise further. Ms Alman also stated that the Appellant had worked for an agency in London called STN Locums, Crown House, North Circular Road, London NW10 7PN.
38. Internal enquiries were then made within the GSCC and it was identified that Ms Alman's complaint had been received by the Conduct Referrals Team. As the Appellant was an Appellant and not a registrant, the file was transferred over from the Conduct Referrals Team to the GSCC Suitability Assessment Service dealing with the Appellant's application for registration. We note in passing that the complaint was passed to the wrong section. We would hope that the GSCC reviews its complaints procedures so that if there is a complaint against an Appellant it is dealt with both by the right people and very quickly.
39. The Highland Council had completed a GSCC former employer complaint form regarding the Appellant. The form confirmed that the Appellant had been employed as a social worker with Highland Council – Social Work Service in the Culloden, Children and Families Team. The description of the Appellant's job duties was stated as "social work in Children and Families Team, undertaking assessments and implementing and reviewing care plans of children in need and looked after children. Contact would include home visits." The complaint form confirmed that the Appellant had been employed from 25 January 2006 to 17 March 2006, and that he had been employed through an agency, STN Locums. Attached to the complaint form was a document headed "Evidence to Support Allegations of Misconduct with regard to Christopher Nwokoro". This document lists the following issues regarding the Appellant:

(i) Timesheets

The timesheet for week ending 10.03.06 shows a signature of Bernadette Finnie dated 10.03.06. Bernadette Finnie did not sign this. Mr Nwokoro did not work 10.03.06, nor 13.03.06.

The timesheet for week ending 10.02.06 shows 35 hours worked. Mr Nwokoro did not work 06.02.06 or 10.02.06. As can be seen, there is evidence of a line drawn through 06.02.06 and diagonally through the Saturday and Sunday of that week. Ms Finnie recalls drawing these lines through the days when Mr Nwokoro did not work. 06.02.06 was blank when she did this.

(ii) Supervision

Ms Finnie reported a difficulty in maintaining supervision sessions at agreed times, having to go and find Mr Nwokoro on several occasions.

Ms Finnie asked Mr Nkororo [sic] at the beginning of his placement at Culloden whether he would require additional assistance in written English and he indicated clearly he did not.

Copies of supervision records are included.

(iii) Reports

Mr Nwokoro's first language is not English and there was a clear expectation from Ms Finnie that there may well be corrections needed to initial reports. However, the first report draft was not made available to her until the deadline arrived and it clearly required substantial reworking, far more than amending written English.

Mr Nwokoro was asked to undertake an assessment of risk with a family. His first draft had no areas of risk, and did not address risk as an issue. A second draft is included, which includes large passages from a report submitted to the court as part of the sentencing process of the adult involved. Ms Finnie raised clear concerns that the risk assessment still did not fully address risk factors in relation to the protection of the children. Both are enclosed as evidence.

A later SBR was discussed with Ms Finnie. She was unavailable to read the report as he had missed the deadline, therefore, Wendy Alman read it. A copy of the report and amendments made is included.

(iv) Case Records

Ms Finnie provided Mr Nwokoro on 10.02.06, details of recording policy and he was directed to appropriate information available to all staff on the Council Intranet.

On 06.03.06, files were inspected by Bernadette Finnie. She commented in the files that there were no case records. This was recorded in supervision record.

Other Observations

Mr Nwokoro attended a training session on 09.03.06 for data input. All new staff attend this as they need to use the Council database. Comments are included about his presentation during that session, along with other concerns raised by Ms Finnie.

On the day that Mr Nwokoro left our employment, he was asked to return his mobile phone. On later inspection, the phone did not contain a SIM card."

40. The complaint form also recorded that the Northern Constabulary had been contacted regarding this matter. The contact name provided within the Constabulary was Detective Constable Eddie Ross.
41. On 26 September 2006, the GSCC telephoned STN Locums. STN stated that the Appellant had not worked for them since being asked to leave by the Highland Council. It had no idea where the Appellant was working but would send a copy of his CV. On the same day, STN wrote to the GSCC enclosing the CV they had received from the Appellant.
42. On 13 October 2006, the GSCC sent a facsimile to Mr Anderson, at the Children in Need Team, Denbighshire, chasing for information regarding the Appellant. It also sent a chasing letter to Mrs Martins at Stockport.
43. On 16 October 2006, the GSCC received an email from Mr Anderson at Denbighshire. In his email, Mr Anderson confirmed that the Appellant had worked for Denbighshire Children's Service between 10 October 2005 and 16 December 2005. He stated that the Appellant was recruited on a short term contract from STN Locums. The Appellant had been based in a team dealing with children and young people in need, children and young people on the Child Protection Register, children and young people looked after and in some cases involving care proceedings. The team within which the Appellant worked was based was at Cefndy Road Children's Resource Centre, Cefndy Road, Rhyl LL18 2HG. Mr Anderson stated that he did not directly manage or supervise the Appellant as he moved to the management of that team at the point when the Appellant left the employ of Denbighshire. He did have concerns about the quality of the work the Appellant was supposed to have undertaken as he had to manage complaints about the Appellant's work after he left. In some of the instances the Appellant had not contacted or visited clients at the frequency required for him to do the job and the Appellant had also failed to implement care plans. Further, Mr Anderson stated that some assessments were not completed by the Appellant in court proceedings. Mr Anderson stated that the Appellant's record keeping did not reach the standard Denbighshire or any local authority would expect. He had produced negative references for the Appellant subsequent to him having left Denbighshire.
44. On 17 October 2006, the GSCC telephoned the Appellant and left a message on his answer phone, as there was no reply. The GSCC stated that it had been nearly three months since it had made the request to confirm his change of address in writing. It had not received any written confirmation from the Appellant and there were several unresolved issues regarding his application. The GSCC advised the Appellant of its intention to refer his application to the Registration Committee recommending refusal if it did not hear from him by 4:00 pm on 19 October 2006.
45. On 19 October 2006, the GSCC received a telephone call from the Appellant. He stated that he would send written confirmation of his change of address and details of where he was currently employed. He confirmed that these details would be received by Monday 23 October 2006.
46. On 25 October 2006, the GSCC received a letter dated 20 October 2006 from Mrs Gani Martins, Head of Service at Stockport. Mrs Martins' letter confirmed that the Appellant was employed by Stockport as an agency worker. The Appellant had been employed via the social work agency, Flow, in May 2006, and that he had been employed from 2 May 2006 until 12 May 2006. Mrs Martins stated that during the period of the Appellant's employment Stockport had concerns about his practice and he was dismissed when it came to light that the reference he had provided was falsified. According to Mrs Martins, the agency who had provided him were informed of Stockport's concerns.
47. On 26 October 2006, the GSCC telephoned Mrs Martins and requested a copy of the falsified reference to which Mrs Martins had referred, together with contact details for Flow.
48. In a letter dated 31 October 2006, Mrs Martins provided the GSCC with a copy of the reference for the Appellant which she said was falsified. This reference was the same reference purporting to be from a Mr Paul Wright, Team Manager at Together Trust, dated 30 March 2006.
49. On 17 November 2006, the GSCC emailed Kate Birch at Highland Council. In its email, the GSCC stated that the issues raised in her complaint regarding the Appellant was being dealt with by the GSCC's Suitability Assessment Service as the Appellant was not yet registered with the GSCC. It asked Ms Birch whether there had been any outcome from the police investigation and whether or not the Appellant had been charged.
50. On the same date, the GSCC wrote to the Appellant. He was reminded that he had been contacted on a number of occasions by the GSCC and asked to provide current contact details. A further request was made to the Appellant to provide details in writing of his current address and telephone number.
51. On 9 January 2007, the GSCC received a telephone call from Wendy Alman at Highland Council. Ms Alman confirmed that Highland Council had passed the relevant information to the police force in Inverness but they had been unable to act and had advised her to contact the Manchester (Stockport) force as the fraud had been perpetrated in their area. According to Ms Alman, they had not heard anything further.
52. On 16 February 2007, the GSCC received a telephone call from the Appellant. The GSCC stated that it was still waiting to hear from him with the written details of his new address. The Appellant stated that he would do this immediately. The Appellant asked if he could work as a social worker whilst waiting for his registration. The GSCC stated that he could not undertake any role which required qualified social worker status or had the words "social worker" anywhere in its title. A few minutes after this first telephone call, the Appellant called the GSCC again. He stated that he had found work as an Assistant Social Worker. The GSCC advised the Appellant that it was absolutely not acceptable for him to undertake this role. Further, the GSCC advised him that as soon as he found work, the GSCC would need to have full details of his employment and his employer to update the GSCC's records.
53. On 16 February 2007, the GSCC telephoned the Highland Constabulary in Inverness and spoke to Detective Constable Jennifer Martin. DC Martin informed the GSCC that she had checked their records and confirmed that in their terms this was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. She further confirmed that the matter had been passed back to England but there was nothing on file by way of a contact person
54. On that same day, the GSCC telephoned the Appellant to remind him to send the following missing information when he provided written confirmation of his address:

Part I of his application form

verified birth certificate or acceptable alternative

payment of £155

full record of all the work he has done since submitting his application in June 2005

name of any agency/agencies or employer he is currently with or planning to join.

55. During this telephone call the Appellant stated that the only letter he had ever received from the GSCC was dated 17 November 2006. The Appellant stated that he has never received anything else from the GSCC as he rang the GSCC the week after sending his application to advise of his change of address. The GSCC advised the Appellant that this could not be so since no call was logged on that evening. The GSCC told the Appellant that if he had called, he would have been told that this information was needed in writing before any change could be made. It stated that Royal Mail would return to the GSCC any mail which had not been delivered. His change of address had first been mentioned during a telephone conversation on 25 July 2006 and he had been asked to confirm this in writing on numerous occasions. He had repeatedly promised to send a letter but this had not been delivered.
56. On 19 February 2007, the GSCC received a telephone call from Detective Sergeant Eddie Ross of the Highland Constabulary that the only information he had related to the matter of low grade fraud and that this being so, and given that STN Locums told him that they would not be taking any action against the Appellant other than to retrieve money from his pay, he had closed the file.
57. On 2 March 2007, the GSCC wrote an email to Flow stating that it required details including the start and finish dates of all the work assignments where the Appellant was placed by Flow; the references Flow took up on accepting his enrolment with the agency; a copy of the CV provided by the Appellant; copies of any references or feedback information obtained from the employers the Appellant was assigned to; and the most recent address details held by Flow for the Appellant.
58. On 5 March 2007, Sunni Dhadwar from Flow replied and confirmed that the Appellant was employed through Flow between 24 April 2006 and 5 May 2006, when they placed him with Stockport and that Flow had been provided with two references from the Appellant, one which they verified, and that they were in the process of verifying the second reference, of which the Appellant had been fully aware.
59. On 6 March 2007, Ms Dhadwar sent by fax a copy of a reference for the Appellant purporting to be provided by Denbighshire Social Services. The reference form was signed by a 'Chris Lucas' with the position Team Manager and was dated 15 December 2005. On the same day the GSCC telephoned Ms Dhadwar to discuss the anomalies identified in this reference. Ms Dhadwar stated that she looked at her notes on the file and confirmed that she had spoken to Mr Anderson at Denbighshire to confirm the information on the Appellant's application. Ms Dhadwar also stated that he had confirmed to her that Chris Lucas was no longer employed with Denbighshire. Ms Dhadwar confirmed that she was absolutely sure it was Mr Anderson with whom she had spoken.
60. On 12 March 2007, the GSCC sent an email to and telephoned Mr Anderson at Denbighshire and read to Mr Anderson, the contents of the reference which had been sent by Flow and which purported to be from Denbighshire. Mr Anderson told the GSCC that what the reference contained was exactly the opposite of the truth about Denbighshire's opinion of the Appellant. Mr Anderson confirmed that Mr Chris Lucas was the Team Manager at the time that the Appellant had been employed by Denbighshire. However, Mr Anderson was clear that Mr Lucas had already left Denbighshire by 15 December 2006 (the date on which the reference purported to have been written). According to Mr Anderson, Mr Lucas was paid up to 16 December but had gone some time before this due to his holiday entitlement. Mr Anderson said that the Appellant himself had left Denbighshire even earlier than this. Mr Anderson had no idea why a reference should contain a finishing date at least four weeks after the actual date the Appellant had ceased working for Denbighshire.
61. On 15 March 2007, the GSCC's Suitability Assessment Service made enquiries with the GSCC's Student Records Team regarding the Appellant's application for registration. The enquiry was based on the fact that the Appellant is an international Appellant (Nigerian) who professes to have a Diploma qualification from Lagos State University. In a copy of the Appellant's CV however, the Appellant had stated that he held an MA in Social Work from Salford University. The dates provided by the Appellant for his studies at Salford University were 2004 to 2006. The Suitability Assessment Service, identified that if this were the case, the MA would outrank the Lagos State University Diploma and therefore the Appellant could be treated as a UK Appellant for registration. The GSCC's Student Records Team was asked to confirm whether the Appellant's MA was valid.
62. On the same day, a Verification Officer from the GSCC's Student Records Team responded and stated that if the Appellant was on an approved UK professional social work course he should be recorded on ETIS. However, there was no-one under the surname NWOKORO on ETIS. The GSCC's Student Records Team confirmed that there was an approved course available at the University of Salford which was an MA in social work. This approved course was a college based, full time course that has been approved, was of two year duration and started in September 2004. The GSCC's Student Records Team advised that the Appellant should have been registered with GSCC Student Records as having entered this course, but due to whatever reason he had not been. The Student Records Team further recommended that if the Appellant thought that he should have been registered on the GSCC approved course, then he would need to go back to the University of Salford and let them know GSCC Student Records Team had no record of his registration on the course or of him passing it.
63. On 5 April 2007, the Clerk to the Registration Committee wrote to the Appellant. In her letter, she stated that the GSCC was of the opinion that the Appellant's application needed further consideration by the Registration Committee. The Clerk to the Registration Committee attached a Notice of Referral to that Committee, dated 23 March 2007. The Notice of Referral stated that the GSCC was minded to refuse the Appellant's application for registration, in summary, for the following reasons:

(a) The GSCC could not be satisfied regarding his competence or his qualification;

(b) Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council dismissed him following concerns about his competence and practice;

(c) The Together Trust dismissed him for failures in relation to performance;

(d) Denbighshire County Council had concerns about his competence and performance following his assignment with them and subsequently provided negative references;

(e) Highland Council dismissed him following concerns about his competence and performance;

(f) He failed to provide the GSCC with verifiable evidence to show that he held an appropriate qualification in Nigeria;

(g) The GSCC can find no evidence to support his contention that he holds an MA in Social Care from the University of Salford, nor is there evidence to show that anybody of his name has enrolled on or passed this course;

(h) The GSCC cannot be satisfied of his good conduct or character as required;

(i) The Together Trust instructed their solicitors to pursue the matter of the fraudulent reference provided by him, in their name, to both Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and the Big Life Company;

(j) Denbighshire are clear that the comments contained in a reference to Flow Recruitment purporting to be from them, but faxed from a print shop in Manchester, are in direct contradiction of the reality of his record whilst in their employment;

(k) Highland Council dismissed him for falsifying time sheets and reported the matter to the police;

(l) He had consistently failed to provide the GSCC with up to date information regarding his employment history, or written confirmation of his new address;

(m) He had consistently failed to provide the GSCC with a properly completed and endorsed application or with a verified copy of his birth certificate or an acceptable alternative form of ID;

(n) He had failed to pay the appropriate registration fee as required under the GSCC registration rules.

64. The Appellant did not respond to the Notice of Referral.
65. The Registration Committee met to consider the Appellant's case on 3 May 2007. The Registration Committee decided to refuse the Appellant's application for registration, for the following reasons:

(a) The Committee could not be satisfied that the Appellant met the qualification criteria because he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to the GSCC to enable them to verify the status and equivalency of his qualifications.

(b) The Committee was not satisfied as to his good character, conduct and competence because:

•    Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council dismissed him following concerns about his practice and when it came to light that the reference he had provided from Together Trust to obtain employment was falsified.

•    The Together Trust dismissed him from employment due to a number of performance issues as outlined in their letter to the GSCC dated 12 May 2006.

•    Denbighshire County Council had concerns about the quality of his work:

Failure to visit clients at the required frequency.

Failure to implement care plans.

Failure to complete assessments in court proceedings.

Poor record keeping.

•    There were concerns about the veracity of a reference which he provided to Flow Recruitment purporting to be from Denbighshire County Council (which appears to have been faxed from a print shop in Manchester).

•    Highland Council dismissed him from employment for falsifying timesheets and because of concerns about his competence and performance as set out in the Employer's Complaint Form.

•    He supplied a falsified reference to the Big Life Company.

•    He has repeatedly failed to provide information requested by the GSCC.

In addition, the Committee noted that he had failed to pay the appropriate registration fee under the Rules.

66. On 4 May 2007, the Clerk to the Registration Committee wrote to the Appellant to confirm that the Committee had decided to refuse his application for registration and enclosed a copy of the Notice of Decision. The Clerk wrote to the Appellant at his address in Manchester. In her letter, the Clerk informed the Appellant that he had a right of appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal, not later than three months after service of the Notice of Decision and that any such appeal should be made direct to the Tribunal. This letter was returned by Royal Mail marked as "addressee has gone away".
67. On 8 May 2007, the GSCC received a telephone call from Bradley Wilkes at Sanctuary Personnel's Ipswich Office. Mr Wilkes stated that he had the Appellant with him and that he had been told by the Appellant to telephone the GSCC about his registration, which according to the Appellant was going to be agreed the previous Friday. Mr Wilkes stated that he was about to put the Appellant forward for a qualified social worker role. Mr Wilkes passed the telephone over to the Appellant, who said that he had no idea what had happened about his application. The GSCC told the Appellant that he had been sent the outcome of the decision on 4 May 2007. The Appellant was told that his registration had been refused. This same information was then relayed to Mr Wilkes.
68. On 10 May 2007, the Clerk to the Registration Committee wrote a further letter to the Appellant on the same terms as her letter of 4 May 2007, this time to a different address in Manchester.
69. On 19 June 2007, the Appellant sent an email to the GSCC's Committee Clerk. In his email, the Appellant stated "with reference to your latter [sic] dated 10/05/06 [sic], this mail is to serve as a means of notifying you that I am appealing against your decision." On the same day, the Senior Clerk to Committee replied to the Appellant by email and informed him that if he were appealing the decision he would need to contact the Care Standards Tribunal no later than 3 months from the date the Notice of Decision was served.
70. On 27 June 2007, the Appellant telephoned the Clerk to the Registration Committee as he wanted to know why his Registration had been refused. The Clerk advised the Appellant that the Committee's reasons were set out in the Notice of Decision which he had been sent. The Appellant stated that he had not received the Notice because he had changed address (he had, however, emailed the Committee Clerk on 19 June 2007, referring to the letter of 10 May 2007, enclosing the Notice of Decision).
71. During this conversation on 27 June 2007, the Appellant stated that he was applying to become a student social worker. The Clerk told the Appellant that he would have to inform the course provider that he had been refused registration and that he would also need to register as a student social worker with the GSCC. The Clerk to the Registration Committee asked the Appellant which university he had applied to, but the Appellant said that he was thinking of undertaking a Masters degree, but had not decided anything.
72. We heard evidence from Mr Anderson from Denbighshire Council who explained the consequences of employing Mr. Nwokoro. Mr Anderson told us that he had to unravel the chaos that had been caused. People needed to be reassessed, work that should have been done already had to be reassigned, court assessments that were due had not been done and plans had not been implemented. This was not just a one off problem but was widespread and had caused difficulties with other professionals, putting vulnerable children at risk.
73. Ms Bowman from the Together Trust said that they had no reason to question the reference that she had received after she had taken up the reference. She said that the Trust did not accept unsolicited references. Ms Bowman's concerns were about the Appellant's performance. Mr. Nwokoro was employed as a night care worker rather than a social worker. Even in that capacity his performance was well below the standard expected. He had poor interaction with young people and children and did not supervise them properly. He was working in an emergency unit for young people whose placements had broken down so they were extremely vulnerable and in need of a lot of care and attention.
74. Ms Hollinrake is the Conduct Manager of the Suitability and Assessment Service of the GSCC. She confirmed the history of the GSCC's involvement and the legal framework in which it operates. This is all set out in the preceding paragraphs.

The findings of the Tribunal on the evidence

75. We have heard nothing from the Appellant. Mr. Nwokoro sent the Tribunal seven pages of documents which were in the bundle and we have read. He did not produce a detailed witness statement answering any of the matters set out above. On that basis, therefore, we have nothing to contradict the GSCC's evidence. We remind ourselves, of course, that the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy both the GSCC and us of his competence and good character. He has singularly failed to do either.
76. In the circumstances, we are satisfied and find as fact that there was evidence before the Committee that Denbighshire had concerns about the quality of Mr. Nwokoro's work as a result of failures to visit clients at the required frequency; failure to implement care plans; failure to complete assessments in court proceedings and poor record keeping. We also find as a fact that the Appellant had been dismissed from Stockport, the Together Trust and Highland Council for issues relating not only to his poor performance but for falsified timesheets and references. There was also evidence, which we accept, that the Appellant had also provided a false reference (purporting to be written by Mr Lucas) to Big Life and Flow.
77. Further, we also find that the Appellant failed to respond to repeated requests by the GSCC, and did not provide a completed application form as he has not submitted a completed Part I. The Appellant has also failed to pay the mandatory registration fee of £155.

Conclusions

78. We are satisfied for all the reasons set out in Paragraphs 75 to 77 above that Mr. Nwokoro is not competent to be registered as a social worker, his conduct is poor and, given the falsified reference, he is not of good character. We are entirely satisfied that the GSCC were right to refuse registration. We will dismiss this appeal.

Concluding Remarks

79. Whilst it is clear to us that the GSCC did all they could to investigate the Appellant, there are some matters of concern to us in the way that employers operate. We appreciate that it is not possible to ensure that every organisation operates to the same high standard but we believe that this case highlights a number of basic failings by employers which could have put a child or young person at risk.
80. First, we are concerned about the poor take up of references by employers. If they are sought they should be taken up by the employer rather than accepting unsolicited references. If an employer is to accept an unsolicited reference it would be prudent to contact the author to check the contents of the reference. Had that been done here Mr. Nwokoro's character would have been questioned much sooner. We applaud the Together Trust's good practice of not accepting any reference other than those they have sought directly. This process may take a little longer but it does ensure that the truth is known.
81. Second we are surprised that, given the history of poor performance that was unearthed by the GSCC's investigations and the discovery of the false reference it was only The Highland Council which made a complaint to the GSCC. One or two referrals were made to the police which is, of course, appropriate. However the crucial reference should be to the GSCC to ensure that service users are protected. The GSCC is in the unique position of being able to collate the evidence from every part of the United Kingdom. Where an individual has moved around as much as Mr. Nwokoro has, the local police will not be able to see the wider picture. One complaint against an individual may be of limited consequence but when there are a number against the same person from different authorities or service providers from a wide area the GSCC will be able to take action much faster and not have to rely on good fortune.
82. Our third concern is the way in which some authorities appear to have accepted that Mr. Nwokoro was a registered social worker when he was clearly not. The registration system is there to protect service users (amongst other things) and it should be standard practice for any employer to check the name and registration number of a prospective employee with the GSCC. For some reason it seems that Mr. Nwokoro's application number was thought to be his registration number. A quick check with the GSCC would have shown this to be wrong. Even the simple step of asking to see the prospective employee's registration certificate would help prevent unqualified people being appointed to posts for which they are not suitable or qualified.
83. So we recommend that:

- Employers check the name and registration number of every prospective employee with the GSCC and ask for sight of the registration certificate in every case.

- That directly requested references are the only ones relied upon. If unsolicited ones are used then there needs to be a check with the author

- All employers send any complaint to the GSCC to enable them to establish a full picture. It may seem trivial to one authority but if there are many "trivial" complaints they may amount to questions of competence or conduct.

Accordingly, our Unanimous decision is:

APPEAL DISMISSED

Mr Simon Oliver

(Deputy President)

Ms Susan Last

Mr Andrew Wilson

Date: 21^st July 2008