England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

Solomon Beckford v General Social Care Council (Amended under Certificate) [2007] 1154(SW)_2 (07 October 2008)

Solomon Beckford -v- General Social Care Council Case No: [2007].1154.SW
Before: Mr Anthony Wadling (Nominated Chairman) Mr Graham Harper Mrs Margaret Williams

Heard at the Birmingham Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, Sheldon Court, 1 Wagon Lane, Birmingham on 21^st to 24^th April and 28^th to 30^th May 2008.

Representation:

The Appellant appeared in person.

For the Respondent, Mr Neil Grant, Solicitor.

Appeal: This hearing is an appeal against the decision of the GSCC Conduct Committee of 3 October 2007 pursuant to Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It is for the Care Standards Tribunal to endorse that decision or to direct that it shall not have effect

1. From August to December 2005 the Appellant was in the employment of Worcestershire County Council (WCC) as a Social Worker. He resigned in December 2005 during the course of a WCC disciplinary investigation concerning his conduct.
2. The subject matter of the disciplinary investigation was referred to the General Social Care Council (GSCC) and following further investigation a Conduct Committee held a three day disciplinary hearing between 1 and 3 October 2007. The Appellant was present and represented by a Unison Professional Services Officer. The Conduct Committee found misconduct proved and their decision was to make an Order for the Appellant to be removed from the GSCC Register.
3. Grounds of appeal

a. In reaching its decision the Conduct Committee has not taken sufficient account of a lack of support and guidance available to the Registrant from the team manager when it came to dealing with a complex case.

b. The Conduct Committee did not take sufficient account of the fact that the alleged violent partner of the social work client was already

aware of the client seeking to move to a refuge. The client had previously spent time at the refuge before moving back to her partner's address. The disclosure therefore had no material impact on the state of the relationship and by itself would be unlikely to have given rise to any subsequent alleged violence.

c. In reaching its decision, the Conduct Committee did not take due consideration of the fact that the role of the Registrant in the case referred to was to conduct an assessment of the position of the client within the relationship and to offer sufficient support such as to enable the client to exercise a choice about her immediate future.

d. Inadequate consideration was given to the experience of the Registrant in dealing with cases of domestic violence and child protection issues and the fact that the Registrant felt genuinely threatened by the partner into making the disclosure. There was no declaration made in writing that the Registrant had domestic violence training or experience. He was clearly not qualified to deal with domestic violence and WCC should have taken more responsibility for sending the right person to do the job. The Registrant had not completed induction, including the child protection aspect and was not given the opportunity to shadow in child protection work as required.

e. The Committee failed to adequately test the allegations surrounding the claims by the client that she had suffered violence at the hand of her partner. The police had failed to substantiate this allegation and there is some evidence to suggest that the client may have been experiencing mental health or drug related problems leading her to make these allegations against her partner.

f. The Committee made a mistake on a matter of fact in citing the Registrant's lack of honesty in relation to his qualifications as one of the reasons for justifying their decisions. No documentary evidence has been produced or presented to support this allegation. The Registrant totally refutes any suggestion that he has been dishonest in this respect.

g. The Committee has not given sufficient weight to the fact that the Registrant had not previously been subject to disciplinary action and he had not previously appeared before the GSCC's Conduct Committee.

h. The Committee did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the Registrant had made a genuine mistake on his application form in connection with his past employment. He had not intended to mislead anyone about his employment, but admits he relied on his memory and with hindsight realizes that is not good enough. Similarly, he did not realise his obligation to report actions WCC took against him as he left their employment before the investigations were concluded.

i. He had not accepted any act of misconduct but was pressurised into doing so by his representative and there is evidence to substantiate this.

Admissions

4. Prior to the disciplinary hearing on 1^st October 2007, the Appellant was invited to admit the series of facts on which the formal allegation was based. These were set out in detail in a schedule dated 19 September 2007 consisting of nine parts.
5. At the disciplinary hearing all the matters set out in the schedule were admitted as facts and misconduct by the Appellant hearing with the exception of three matters; Part 1 h; Part 2 c; Part 9 c;
6. The Appellant later produced a second version of the schedule dated 14 February 2008 for this appeal hearing in which he made no admissions of misconduct but admitted as facts the following matters;

Parts 1b and i, Part 2 b and d, Part 3b and c, Part 4b-j, Part 5 b-i, Part 6 a-d, part 7 b-e, h and k, Part 8 b-g and j-m and Part 9b and d.

Witnesses

7. The following persons gave oral evidence for the Respondent; Joan Woodley, Mr Beckford's Team Manager, Caroline Fletcher, social worker, Suki Bahd, social work assistant, Joan Woodley, social worker, Maggie Forbes Operations Manager at SWISS UK Ltd a recruitment agency, Stuart Watkins Operational Services Manager WCC.The Appellant gave evidence and Sister Joan Welch gave character evidence on his behalf. Written references were provided by V Ashley and R Punton.

Background

8. The Appellant has worked in a variety of social care work employments providing direct support over a period of sixteen years. In 2004 he attended University of Central England and obtained the Diploma in Social Work and after a further year was awarded a BSc in social work. He was registered with the General Social Care Council on 4^th May 2005. Also in May 2005, the Appellant applied to Worcestershire County Council (WCC) for a post as Social Worker in Children and Families Duty and Assessment Team and was offered employment on 16^th June 2005. The Appellant commenced employment on 22^nd August 2005. At the time of commencing employment the Appellant did not have a current CRB clearance so was precluded from lone visits to children or adults with children. The authority's induction programme, lasting for two to three weeks commenced on 25 August 2005 and the Appellant was given an 'induction timetable'. At the same time he was given a supervision contract setting out the terms of the process of supervision between the social worker and their manager and the attributes required of a social worker and what contributions the supervisor will make to assist the social worker in his/her supervision.

Respondent's Evidence

9. The Children and Families Duty and Assessment Team (Children Team) responds to a wide range of referrals including some which involve situations of domestic violence. 'A' was a young pregnant female with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, referred to the Children Team by the maternity ward of the local hospital because of her failure to attend ante-natal appointments. 'A' was known to be cohabiting with a man 'B' with a history of violence towards her. 'A' sought help from the children team on 16^th September 2005, to find her a refuge, preferably in Wales, and was seen by the Appellant and Suki Bahd, a social work assistant. Suki Bahd found a refuge placement and arranged a travel warrant and taxi to the railway station.
10. On 19^th September 2005 the refuge telephoned Suki Bahd to advise her 'A' had not arrived. Joan Woodley, Children Team manager, was concerned for 'A's safety and as the police were unable to carry out a 'safe and well check', the Appellant and Suki Bahd were asked to visit 'A' at her friend's house where she was thought to be staying. The team manager provided a briefing and the case file for reading so they could update themselves on the background before visiting, which they did. The team manager told the Appellant and Suki Bahd to be careful on the visit. As the Appellant and Suki Bahd could not find 'A's friend's house, they resolved to try find 'A' and see if she was at 'B's house. They first returned to the team office and in the absence of the team manager spoke with Caroline Fletcher, senior practitioner, who thought it appropriate to go to 'B's address in the event that 'A' was not at her friend's house.
11. On the journey to 'B's house, Suki Bahd asked the Appellant what they would do if 'B' was at home and the Appellant confidently said it would be alright as he would be there. At 'B's house, the Appellant did not appear nervous about the visit and did not express any doubt that the visit should not be undertaken. The Appellant led the conversation when 'B' answered the door and asked if they could speak inside the house. 'B' was reluctant to allow entry but agreed to do so when the Appellant explained they were there to speak with 'A'. Inside the house 'A' appeared shocked and terrified at their visit and Suki Bahd's evidence was that they could not speak to 'A' so the visit needed to be as brief as possible without raising 'B's suspicions. However, the Appellant asked 'A' 'what's all this about then?' Suki Bahd recalled 'A' looked at the Appellant, then at 'B' and then at her; 'A' did not answer. 'B' then repeated the question sarcastically and said, 'I'd like to know as I don't get told anything'. Suki Bahd asked if she could speak to 'A' alone and 'B' refused. Suki Bards's file note of the visit on 19 September records that that: "The Appellant asked 'A' why she had not gone to the refuge. I tried to steer the conversation elsewhere but without success. 'B' had heard the Appellant. 'B 'then said 'What refuge?" Are you trying to get away from me again, She ran off before you know. That's why I'm like this'. I stated that was not correct. What had happened was that we had asked 'A' if she would like to go to a refuge, as it is what we do if we feel someone may need to relax or rest. I reassured 'B' that the only reason we were there was just to check on 'A' really, because she kept missing medical appointments. No other reason at all. " There was discussion about the safety of the child and the Appellant told 'B' that he needed to relax and live in harmony with 'A' for the sake of the child. 'B' was very calm and said how much he cared for 'A'. The Appellant then asked 'B' if it was OK for 'A' to stay there until the baby was born, to which 'B' replied, 'she can stay as long as she likes'. 'A' and 'B' then started arguing about who was the father of the baby amongst other things. Following which, the Appellant asked 'B', 'do you hit 'A', and 'B' replied 'no'.
12. During the visit, the Appellant and Suki Bahd were sitting together on a settee facing 'B'; at one point 'A' moved behind 'B' and indicated to them to stop talking by shaking her head and pulling a face. Suki Bahd gave evidence that even at that point, the Appellant, 'continued to carry on with his inappropriate questions and completely ignored 'A's pleas for us to stop'. After about 30 minutes the Appellant and Suki Bahd left the house. In evidence Suki Bahd said, 'I felt that the Appellant's questions had simply fuelled the situation at the house, I was physically shaking as we left the premises. I was very angry to have been put in that situation by the Appellant, as we got in the car I told the Appellant straight away that I had serious concerns about the way he had conducted the visit. I told him that he shouldn't have mentioned anything about 'B' hitting 'A' or the refuge'. The Appellant asked, 'why not, that's what 'A' herself had said in the office?' Suki Bahd replied, 'we have put her in danger by telling 'B' about her plans to go to the refuge'; the Appellant responded, 'she is not in any danger. 'B' is a nice man. If she was in danger, why didn't she go to the refuge?'.
13. On the return of the Appellant and Suki Bahd, they were interviewed by Joan Woodley. Her evidence was that the Appellant said that the visit had 'gone fine' and that he had asked 'A' why she had not gone to the refuge. Ms Woodley was shocked by this breach of confidence and questioned the Appellant as to his knowledge of domestic violence and his reply was that 'he had a lot of training and worked with people in domestic violence situations.' He also said that if 'A' was so afraid of 'B' that 'she should have left him.' Ms Woodley referred to research on situations of this kind and the pattern of behaviour of women trying to escape from violence and come to social services when they are vulnerable and have lost self esteem. The Appellant's response was to laugh. He also persisted that 'A' was not in danger and the violence was her fault.
14. At a further meeting with the Appellant on 19 September to discuss matters relating to domestic violence, Ms Woodley explained that 'B' was known by the police and social services that 'A' had been the victim of domestic violence by 'B' for some time. He repeated that he had significant experience in domestic violence cases and referred to his work at the Handsworth Home Treatment Mental Health Team. He said that he had worked with a man who was abusive to his partner and that he 'had gotten them back together again' and that it was 'the woman that accused the poor man'. He was asked if he had ever worked with children and he said that he had spent five years in a residential establishment in Birmingham working with children. He also claimed to have worked with children in the Crisis Intervention team at Handsworth Home Treatment Mental health team. He also stated that he had worked on many domestic violence cases where 'the man's needs and self esteem are not being met and he gets frustrated'. He refused to accept that he had put 'A' in danger, 'she has not made a complaint about me and nor has he'. He added that Suki Bahd had also told him before the visit that B was a really nasty violent man and he did not think this was true.
15. Two days later 'A' came to the Social Services offices so that the incident on 19 September 2005 could be explained. 'A' said that the Appellant had said things that she did not want 'B' to hear. 'He told him everything I said last Friday (at the Social Services offices) Suki Bahd had tried to protect me and talk over him to stop him but he wouldn't stop'. After they left he threw her down the stairs, this was on the following day. The travel warrant that had been provided for her to get to the refuge had been torn up by 'B' when he found her at the railway station the previous day. During this meeting the Appellant walked past the office window and 'A ' became visibly distressed when she saw him.
16. In Ms Woodley's opinion when it became apparent to the Appellant and Suki Bahd that 'B' was present at the house 'I would have expected him to carry out a 'low level visit and return to the office. They both had access to the file for 'A' ''which I would have expected competent social workers to read before making such a site visit.' 'B' had a long criminal record including an assault on 'A' which was not proceeded with.
17. As a result of the events concerning the incident concerning 'A' and 'B', complaints were made about the Appellant and his conduct in that matter. The Appellant was made the subject of an investigation by WCC. The person appointed to carry out the investigation was Enid Noctor a senior manager at WCC. The remit of the inquiry was the circumstances of the events of 19/20 September 2005 (and another matter not relevant to this appeal).
18. The Appellant was interviewed by Ms Noctor concerning his claims made to Joan Woodley of his experience and training in both domestic violence and working with children (working for five years in a children's home in Northfield, Birmingham). Neither of these topics was included in his application form for the post of social worker under the heading of Education, Training and Qualifications. In fact his experience in domestic violence was admitted to be limited to reading at University and one police-led conference where he disagreed with other participants. In contradiction to his statement to Joan Woodley that he had worked for five years in a Children's Home, he admitted that this amounted to his being a volunteer in premises where his sister cared for pre-adoption children. His explanation was that he did not put this information on his application form as he did not know if this arrangement was legal or not.
19. The first interview took place on 6 October 2005 during which the Appellant said that 'A' had not given her consent to his speaking to 'B' concerning her going to a refuge. When asked why, he said for the first time, "My life was in danger to be put in that situation so I would have to breach her confidentiality". He also said that he felt that his life was in danger to be put in that situation so he would have to breach her ('A's) confidentiality." He also said that he could be hit, stabbed in the back or anything if he tried to leave the house.
20. The conclusion reached by Ms Noctor having taken evidence from those concerned in the Appellant's visit to 'A' was that "each one stated that their most significant concern had been the fact that Mr Beckford had not recognised the strong evidence-based practice issues in relation to domestic violence and he lacked any understanding of the impact of his actions."

Appellant's Case

21. The case for the Appellant on appeal was that at the Conduct Committee hearing the Appellant was pressed into admitting the facts set out in the Formal Allegation (save for 1h, 2c, and 9c). This was because the Trade Union Official representing him had said that he would get compassionate treatment by the Committee. The Official was not called to give evidence on this issue.
22. Prior to this appeal hearing the Appellant was offered further representation provided by Unison if he provided evidence to support his case in part or in whole. In the event he was not represented and throughout the hearing the Tribunal was mindful of the disadvantages of an unrepresented appellant in presenting his own case.

Appellant's evidence

23. (Parts 1,2 and 3) The Appellant gave his account of the events of 19 September. It was that his lack of a CRB check meant that he could not work alone and so could not do his work fully. The assessment of 'A' was carried out by Suki Bahd. She told 'B' that the purpose of the visit was because of missed ante natal appointments. 'A' said that 'B' had pushed her down the stairs but there was no information to support this claim. When they arrived at 'B''s' house, 'A' was in a chair, she was very relaxed and she did not want them there. 'B' asked the purpose of the visit and 'A' looked shocked. He said that "he was there to do an assessment of 'A's needs". Suki Bahd, in the presence of 'B' said that we had come to see if 'A' needed time at the refuge. 'B' said that we did not need to be there as 'A' had spent time in the Refuge and had returned home. Everyone was socialising and 'B' was talking to me and 'A' was talking to Suki Bahd. He said that he never said that 'B' was a nice man. "'A' asked me to call her when I reached the office and I took the phone number. In the car Suki Bahd said that she didn't know if 'B' was putting on a show as he was calm and friendly. I reported to Joan Woodley that 'A' gave me permission to speak about the Refuge in the presence of 'B'. 'B' said that he knew that 'A' was moving to the Refuge. 'B' had followed 'A' to the office and then to the Station and destroyed 'A''s travel warrant." The Appellant said that he had no Domestic Violence training and never claimed that he had. If he had it would have been in his CV. "There was no discussion or planning or advice given for the visit. The matter was very complex and I was not qualified to deal with Domestic Violence, the wrong person was sent as my induction was not complete. I had no opportunity to shadow as required."
24. Prior to this hearing the Appellant's representative wrote to 'B' asking if he was willing to make a statement concerning the events of 19 September 2005. B replied by letter in which he said that on the day in question he and 'A' were at home when Suki Bahd and the Appellant arrived at about 4pm. 'B' stated that Suki Bahd asked 'A' why she was missing medical appointments. He denies this was the case and that 'A's claim to be the victim of domestic violence was a false allegation and that he did not recall any reference to a refuge by the Appellant other than only by 'A' when she said the Refuge was unsuitable. No explanation was provided as to why 'B' did not attend and give evidence. From a note on the letter, it appears that 'B' was in direct contact with the Appellant rather than through his representative.
25. (Parts 4, 5 and 6) On completing the GSCC application to be entered on the Social Care Register as a social worker the required details of previous employers were not provided by the Appellant. He claimed to have lost all copies of employment documents in a briefcase which was stolen and he could not remember all the names of previous employers. "I was just a support worker and I was attending Coventry University". He also had a job in Sutton Coldfield 'but they changed their name and address'. The burglary was said to have been reported on 7 February 2001 but the Appellant was not sure if more documents were later stolen.

(Parts 7,8) In January and February 2006, the Appellant sought employment with SWIIS International who did not proceed to employ him , but did not provide details of previous employments including WCC and Pulse Social Care, nor did he disclose that he was the subject of suspension and disciplinary proceedings by WCC and an investigation by GSCC when he had been aware of it since 18 January 2006. The same non-disclosure was repeated when on 17 March 2006 he applied for employment with Balfor Social Care. In evidence he said that he did not notify GSCC of the suspension or disciplinary action but decided "I should wait".

Findings of fact of the matters constituting the Formal Allegation

26. Parts 1, 2 and 3; we find all these facts proved; the evidence of Suki Bahd was both truthful and reliable as to the Appellant's conduct in the presence of 'B' and 'A's distress at his conduct. We do not accept the Appellant's account of what was said in the presence of 'B' concerning 'A's concern for obtaining a place in a refuge. Nor do we accept the Appellant's claimed fear of violence," that he might be hit, stabbed in the back, anything if he tried to leave" 'B's house. We also find on the evidence of Joan Woodley and Enid Noctor that the Appellant claimed to have had received domestic violence training when his experience was no more than reading and attending one conference.
27. Part 4; When the Appellant applied for GSCC registration as a social worker, he failed to provide accurate information concerning the dates of his previous employments with Birmingham Community Health Trust, Allied Healthcare Group, and failing to disclose employment with SWIIS International. The Appellant attributes these matters as errors. He also failed to disclose to the GSCC his suspension and prospective disciplinary proceedings by WCC.
28. Part 5; Similar errors occurred when the Appellant applied for employment with WCC and was required to provide details of previous employment. He stated that he had worked at South Birmingham Community trust for five rather than three years as was the case. Nor did he give details of his three years employment by the Allied Health Group or with Paulshof Ltd for nine months.
29. Part 6; In July 2004 the Appellant registered with Pulse Social Care and signed but did not date a registration form and did not state that he had been employed from 2001 to 2003 through SWIIS International PLC.
30. Part 7; In January 2006 the Appellant signed an application for employment with Balfor Social Care but again did not include his previous employments and gaps. He did not include his employment with Pulse Social Care and nor did he include the circumstances of his employment by WCC. He was required to state whether he had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings, suspension or dismissal proceedings. He made no reference to the disciplinary proceedings which commenced on 21 September 2005, or that he was the subject a current GSCC investigation. This information was in his possession from at least from 18 January 2006.
31. Part 8; On 17 March 2006 the Appellant applied for employment with Balfor Social Care and had to provide five years employment history. In doing so he did not include Pulse Social Care from June to August 2005 or his suspension by WCC or the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings on 21 September and the commencement of an investigation by the GSCC known to him from 18 January 2006.
32. Part 9; On 1 July 2005 the Appellant attended before an interview panel of a permanent post of employment at Birmingham City Council and the Appellant is said to have stated that he was a trained community psychiatric nurse when he never had been registered as a practitioner by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. This matter was referred to the GSCC but it was decided "that we do not have enough evidence to meet the threshold for a possible breach in the codes of practice for social care staff. Without Mr Beckford's application form we are unable to further progress with our investigations".

Decision

On the evidence before us we find all the facts of misconduct proved save for those in Part 9 given the initial decision of the GSCC was not to pursue the matter. We confirm the findings of fact by the Conduct Committee other than as to Part 9 and this appeal is dismissed.

Sanction

33. Given the very serious nature of the facts of this appeal and the failure of the Appellant to acknowledge any failings in his conduct concerning the events of 19 September 2005 we find the decision of the Conduct Committee's Order for the Appellant to be removed from the Register to be proportionate. In reaching this decision we also take into account that when deciding the issue of what sanction is to be imposed the Committee must take into account "the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services".

Mr Anthony Wadling

(Nominated Chairman)

Mr Graham Harper

Mrs Margaret Williams

Date: 27^th June 2008