First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)

Evans v General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 26 (HESC) (16 April 2009)
Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers
Cancellation of registration

Michelle Susannah Evans

-v-

THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2009] 1462.SW

-Before-

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated Tribunal Judge)

Dr. Jill Low

(Specialist Member)

Paul Thompson

(Specialist Member)

Decision

Heard on 3 April 2009

Care Standards Tribunal Service

18 Pocock Street

London SE1 0BW

Representation

In accordance with an order of the Tribunal dated 18 March 2009 this appeal was determined on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties before 23 March 2009.

Appeal

The Appellant appeals under Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the decision of the Respondent to remove the Appellant from the Social Care Registration as her registration had lapsed.

The burden of proof is upon the Appellant to a balance of probabilities.

The Law

1. The Rules on Registration of Social Workers are now set out in the General Social Care Council (Registration Rules) 2008, which in relevant part state as follows. Rule 6 sets out the duration of the registration, which is for three years.

2. Rule 7 sets out the requirements for the renewal of registration, which states as follows.

7. (1) This rule shall not apply to students.

(2) Where an application for renewal of registration is granted by the Council, the Registrant's entry in the Register will be effective for a further period of three years, subject to removal in accordance with the provisions of these Rules or of the Council's Conduct Rules.

(3) Applications for renewal of registration shall be made on the form approved by the Council for the purpose.

(4) The Council shall only grant an application to renew registration where:

(a) it is satisfied that the Applicant has satisfactorily fulfilled any condition or conditions attached to the Applicant's registration; and

(b) it has received satisfactory evidence, as set out in rule 4(3)(a) above, of an

Applicant's -

(i) good character;

(ii) good conduct;

(iii) physical and mental fitness to perform the whole or part of the work of a social worker; and

(iv) competence;

(c) it has received satisfactory evidence that an Applicant has completed the post

registration training and learning requirements set out in SCHEDULE 3; and subject to rule 25, it has received payment of the renewal of registration fee specified by the Council and any annual fee specified in SCHEDULE 2 to these Rules due from the previous period of registration.

2. Rule 9 sets out the conditions for Removal from the register for other reasons

(1) Notwithstanding -

(a) any other provision in these Rules; or

(b) provisions in the Council's Conduct Rules for the removal of a Registrant's

entry from the Register, where the Council receives written notification of the death of a Registrant, evidenced by the original or certified true copy of a death certificate or such other evidence of death that is acceptable to the Council, it shall remove the Registrant's entry from the Register.

(2) Where -

(a) the Registrant has failed to make any application for renewal of registration or to pay the renewal fee set out in SCHEDULE 2 to these Rules before the expiry of the three year period specified in rule 6(1)(a) above, the Council may remove the Registrant's entry from the Register;

(b) the Registration Committee has considered an application for renewal of registration and directed that the Registrant's entry should be removed from the Register, the Council shall remove the Registrant's entry from the Register; or

(c) the Registrant has made an application, in writing, for voluntary removal from the

Register, the Council may remove the Registrant's entry from the Register, unless that Registrant is the subject of a Complaint.

(3) The Council may at its discretion remove a Registrant's entry from the Register, at the request of that Registrant, where the Council is satisfied that the Registrant is registered with another Care Council.

The Evidence before the Tribunal

3. The Council registered the Appellant on 15 April 2005 and her registration was due to be renewed on 15 April 2008. On 17 January 2008 , a 'renewal pack' was sent to the Appellant, reminding her of the date upon which her registration was due to expire. The Respondent has no record of receiving any application form. In January 2008 the Appellant went on maternity leave. In her e mail to the Tribunal dated 23 March 2009, she states that despite having just given birth prematurely and despite having health problems she handed in these forms personally at her work place, travelling with her baby, then a few weeks old. We have read a letter from Michelle Lee-Izu dated 20 March 2009 , now Head of Operations South England, Barnardo's who states that around late February 2008 she endorsed and verified the application form in her then capacity as the Appellant's authorised manager. She did not speak directly to the Appellant who was on her maternity leave, but to her line manger Jeanie Lynch who made it clear that the Appellant wanted the matter processed quickly as her registration was due to lapse in April. Ms. Lee Izu states that she " cannot be 100% certain if I returned the completed the from to Jeanie Lynch or directly to the Social Care Council". However she then appears to contradict herself as she goes on to say "However the form was dispatched by me through first class post".
4. On the 22 October 2008 the Respondent wrote to the Appellant at her home address advising her that her application had lapsed. This prompted a telephone call from the Appellant. A further renewal pack was sent out. The Appellant took steps to chase this up and called again on 3 November 2008, when it was confirmed to her that the pack had been sent. The Appellant called again on 18 November 2008 to say that the application was '"on it's way".
5. Ms. Lee-Izu states that in November 2008, the Appellant's new line manager made her aware that the first form had not been received and sent over another within a day for her urgent attention. In her recent e-mail ,the Appellant who is still on maternity leave states that she handed the form in personally. That form was also sent out by first class post. Ms. Lee-Izu refers to the Appellant being a "victim of administration and or postal failures".
6. The Appellant was removed from the Social Care Register on 8 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 9(2) (a) set out above.

Conclusions

7. We have undertaken our decision-making on the basis that we should consider whether or not given the evidence at the date of the hearing it was right for the Respondent to exercise his discretion and remove the Appellant from the Register.
8. It is the Appellant's personal responsibility to get registration renewed. The process calls into play a number of the core competences a social worker is expected to demonstrate: time management, an understanding of the statutory scheme, taking personal responsibility for ensuring registration and record keeping. We are satisfied that the Appellant understood her obligations and took them seriously. She had taken proper steps to chase up the matter with the GSCC, as recorded by them in November 2008 but did not chase up whether the second form had been received.
9. We have not been provided with copies of either application form. However we accept that the Appellant filled them in and that they were endorsed and verified by Ms Lee-Izu. The Appellant had therefore completed stage one and stage two. The third stage is receipt of the form by the GSCC. This mater was listed for a paper hearing. On the very limited evidence before us we cannot allocate where the fault for the failure of either delivery les. There are three possibilities. One is that there was an administrative failure within Barnardo's. Ms. Lee-Izu is not clear whether she or Jeanie Lynch sent the first form off. It is not clear if either manager personally posted the forms or if they simply went into the office postal system and if they did whether they would be recorded in any way. It is possible that the Post Office not just delayed but lost either one or two forms. No enquiries have been made so we have no evidence to conclude that possibility is more likely than not. The GSCC have a system of logging all applications received. Again it is possible, but not established by evidence that somehow either one or two applications were received but not logged and have not come to light in the intervening months.
10. We are not without sympathy for the Appellant who, in her absence on maternity leave had to depend on her managers. The Appellant is concerned what effect removal will have on her future career. She is not being removed from the register for a conduct matter but because she did not re-register. We consider this was a proportionate response by the Respondent. The response to the appeal states that the Appellant has concurrently applied for restoration to the Register under Rule 10.

Accordingly, our Unanimous decision is that the appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated First Tier Tribunal Judge)

Dr. Jill Low

(Specialist Member)

Paul Thompson

(Specialist Member)

Date: 16 April 2009