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

Paul Stothart Breeze v General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 7 (HESC) (30 January 2009)
Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers - Cancellation of registration

PAUL STOTHART BREEZE
-v-
THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL [2008] 1411.SW
-Before-
Tony Askham (Nominated Tribunal Judge) Carol Caporn (Specialist Member) Raymond Winn (Specialist Member)
Decision

Heard on 15 January 2009 at the Care Standards Tribunal Service, 18 Pocock Street, London, SE1 0BW

Representation

In accordance with an order of this Tribunal dated the 19 December 2008 this Appeal was determined on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties on or before 9 January 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 register as his registration had lapsed.

The Evidence before the Tribunal

1. The Appellant was registered as a social worker on 10 March 2005 for a period of 3 years. His registration was due for renewal therefore on 10 March 2008.
2. The Appellant had been living in Venezuela for two and a half years when on 18 July 2008 he emailed the Respondent saying "Please can you give me some advice as to what I would need to do to be in a position to re-register? .He set out what experience and training he had undergone in the previous three years. Importantly in that email of 18 July the Appellant identified to the Respondents that he was in Venezuela and that post marked for him through the Foreign and Commonwealth office would take at least 3 weeks to get to Venezuela and communication would therefore be preferable by email.
3. On 21 July 2008 the Respondents replied through a registration assistant saying "at present you remain on the Social Care register, in order to remain registered for the next 3 years you need to complete the registration form for renewal of registration". The email set out how the forms might be received on line and explained the requirements for post registration training and learning and the need to pay a renewal fee.
4. Following the email of 21 July the Respondent sent a letter dated the 28 July 2008 to the Appellant at the correct address for him in London for sending on to him in Venezuela. That letter made no reference to the previous email but confirmed that the current period of registration had expired, set out the legal situation and indicated "if we do not receive your renewal application within 14 days we will begin the process of removing your name from the Social Care register". We note that this letter, which appears to us to be a standard letter sent to applicants who have not lodged a renewal application on time, could not to be acted upon by the Appellant given the fact that the Appellant had made clear that any letters sent to him would have taken at least 3 weeks to arrive by which time the 14 days given in the letter would have expired. We find it difficult to understand given the clarity with which the Appellant had given his request for correspondence to be by email the notice was sent by post and was not at least copied to him by email. We can only presume the person responsible for sending the letter was unaware of the email exchange.
5. On 7 August the Appellant emailed the Respondent to ask when his 3 years expired and when he needed to complete his renewal form. Importantly on 8th August the same registration assistant replied to him "thank you for contacting the General Social Care Council. Your renewal date is 10 March 2008 3 years from when you were initially registered which was 10 March 2005. Please send a complete application form and PRTL form to us as soon as possible. You will remain on the register until further notice." Importantly that email made no reference to the letter of the 28 July. If it had the Appellant would have been alerted to the fact that the Respondent was going to consider removing him from the register. It appears clear that the registration assistant who was dealing with the Appellant's email correspondence had no knowledge of the letter of the 28 July.
6. In the meantime the Appellant proceeded to complete the application form and seek help from his form employers CAFCASS about counter signing the form and helping him complete his training log. In hindsight and most probably unwisely the Appellant failed to inform the Respondent that this was what he had done. On 3 October 2008 the Appellant emailed his line manager at CAFCASS with the application form and accompanying papers.

.

7. It took a few weeks for CAFCASS to organise the signing of the appropriate documents and verifying of the information in it and as a result the renewal form and other documents were not received by the Respondents until 4 November 2008.
8. However by then on 23 October 2008 the Respondent had taken the decision to remove the Respondent's name from the register. Having made that decision they wrote to the Appellant by post and again did not email him, informing him of that decision. The Appellant tells us and it is not disputed that letter was not received by him in Venezuela until 17 November.
9. It is against this decision that the Appellant appeals.

The Law

The rules on the registration of social workers are now set out in the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008. Rule 6(1) provides:

(a) "Subject to the removal from the register in accordance with the Council's Conduct Rules or Rules 8 and 9 of these rules, and subject to paragraph (4) below the registrant's entry in the register shall remain effective (a) where the registrant is a social worker, either for three years from the date of granting the application for registration by the Council;

Rule 6 (3) provides;

" no less than 28 days before the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1(a) above, the Council shall send to the address of the registrant, as it appears in the register; a) a notice of expiry of the registration; b) an application form for a renewal of registration

Rule 6(4) provides:

"Not withstanding paragraph 1(a) above, a registrant's registration shall not lapse if; (a) the registrant makes an application for renewal before the end of the period specified in that paragraph;

Rule 7(2) provides:

"Where an application for a renewal of registration is granted by the Council, the registrant's entry in the register will be affective for a further period of 3 years, subject to removal in accordance with the provisions of these rules or the Council's conduct rules.

Paragraph 9(2) provides:

"Where – (a) the registrant has failed to make an application for renewal of registration or to pay the renewal fee set out in schedule 2 of 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.

Conclusion

10. 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 its discretion and remove the Appellant from the register. We are satisfied that in accordance with the regulations the Respondents wrote to the Appellant at his correct address for forwarding to Venezuela a letter of 14 December 2007 informing him that his registration would expire on 10 March and that he had to send in a new application before that date pursuant to Rule 6(3).
11. It is quite apparent to us however that the Respondent allowed the Appellant's name to remain on the register and that it was still on the register in August 2008 and that it had not exercised its discretion to remove his name under Rule 9 (2) as at that date.
12. We accept the evidence of the Appellant that he did not receive the letter of 28 July 2008.
13. In our judgement the Appellant was entitled to rely on the very clear assurance made in the email to him of 8 August 2008 that he would remain on the register until "further notice". He did not receive further notice as he did not receive the letter of 28 July. Neither was he given any opportunity to ensure that he could comply with the 14 day time limit set out in that letter. The respondent in the email of the 8 August should have informed the Appellant of the contents of the letter of the 28 July and not given the general assurance that it did. It is clear to us that the Appellant had advised the Respondent that correspondence with him in Venezuela would have taken 3 weeks at least to arrive and that the preferred method of communication was by email.
14. In our view therefore it appears that the Appellant's name was removed from the register without due warning being given to him. Given the correspondence between the parties to do so was unfair and gave the Appellant no opportunity to comply with the timescale being imposed on him. On the facts it was unreasonable for the Respondents to have taken the action.
15. Finally it appears sensible that the Respondent should look at its procedure for dealing with applicants for renewal, who are resident abroad. We note that in new applications it acknowledges that it will require additional time to deal with applications from overseas applicants. Similarly its own procedures need to properly factor the whereabouts of the applicant and the timescale for communications into its decision making. Communication by electronic means, as well as paper copies, could avoid unnecessary delays.
16. For that reason we allowed the appeal and order that the Appellant name be placed back on the register to enable his application for renewal to be dealt with on its merits.

Accordingly, our Unanimous decision is:

That this appeal is Allowed and that the Respondent re-instate the Appellant on to the register maintained by it.

Tony Askham

(Nominated First Tier Tribunal Judge)

Carol Caporn

(Specialist Member)

Raymond Winn

(Specialist Member)

Date: 30 January 2009