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

 

 

 

 

Alice Cynthia Elliot

v

General Social Care Council

                                                [2011] 1879.SW

 

 

Before:

Judge John Aitken Deputy Chamber President HESC

Specialist member Raymond Winn

Specialist member Jennifer Lowcock

 

 

Consideration Date: 7^th July 2011

 

Appeal

1.     The Applicant appeals pursuant to section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against a decision of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) to refuse to restore her name to the Social Care Register (the register). The decision was notified to her by letter dated the 17^th December 2010. The reason given by the GSCC for the refusal was the Applicant's breach of the code of conduct.

Evidence

2.     The consideration of the case was conducted by consent of both parties without their attendance. The Tribunal considered the bundle of 200 pages prepared by the Respondent in accordance with the Tribunals direction and containing all documents both parties wished to draw to the attention of the Tribunal.

Facts

3.     The Applicant has been registered as a social worker since 22^nd May 2006. It was been a requirement for her to renew her Registration after three years. She was informed that she had been removed from the register by the General Social Care Council on the grounds of failure to renew her registration on 24^th July 2009. On 2^nd November 2009 the appellant submitted an application for registration which was treated as an application for restoration and considered at a meeting of the General Social Care Council’s Registration Committee on 16^th December 2010 in accordance with the Registration Rules. At that hearing the appellant did not attend nor did she make any written submission and the Committee found that the code of conduct had been breached and refused to restore her name to the register.  
    

4.      The particular allegations of breach of the codes of practice which were found to have been established by the committee were:

                                          i.     “On 9^th July 2009 your two youngest children aged 13 years and 12 years were made subject to a Child Protection Plan following a child protection investigation and you did not share that information with your managers (contrary to paragraphs 4.4.1.ii and 4.2.16 of the disciplinary code of Hillingdon Council) 

                                         ii.     “You allowed GSCC re-registration to lapse and did not respond to reminders (contrary to paragraph 4.4.3.i of the disciplinary code)    

                                        iii.     You omitted information from your GSCC re-registration form regarding London Borough of Hillingdon being your current employer and that you were subject to a (disciplinary) fact finding investigation. You asked your partner (now ex-partner) to countersign the form instead of the London Borough of Hillingdon managers. Contrary to paragraph 4.4.4.i”

5.      The appellant denies allegations i and ii, but admits allegation iii. The letters written and their receipt or non receipt form part of the disputes in this case.   

Relevant Law

 

6.     By virtue of section 56 of the Care Standards Act 2000, the Respondent maintains a register of social workers. Section 60 enables the Respondent, by way of rules, to make provision about the registration of persons applying to be included on the Register. The relevant rules here are The General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008

 

7.     Rule 6(3) provides:

(3) 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 registration; and

(b)        an application form for renewal of registration.

Under “Service of documents”  rule 3  provides that the notice is to be sent  “by registered post or by a postal service in which delivery or receipt is recorded…”

Further, under Rule 7(4) (b)

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

(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

8.     An appeal against a decision of the Committee lies to the First Tier Tribunal under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000. On an appeal against a decision the Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect (s.68(2)). The burden is on the Respondent to demonstrate that the removal of the Applicant from the register was a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Appellant’s position

9.      The appellant claims that the procedure before the Committee was defective in failing to give her proper notice of the hearing and so preventing her from attending or making written submissions.     

10. In respect of allegation i) she alleges that her managers were fully aware of all child protection issues and the investigation (appellant’s submission’s paragraph 51), and that she was unaware she should report the issue to the Human Resources department.

11. In respect of the failure to respond to re-registration reminders she alleges that it was a mixture of failures to notify and failures on the part of her managers at Hillingdon which caused the difficulties.        

12. In respect of allegation iii, the appellant admits wrong doing, denies dishonesty and explains that she went along with an idea suggested by someone at an agency to use information from a previous employer rather than her current employers. She claims she did not realise it was dishonest because her former employer (and partner) had countersigned it.

 

Respondent’s position

13. The Respondent submits that it has complied with the notification requirements and that the issues were correctly identified and the committee were entitled to remain unsatisfied of her unsuitability. Also that the hearing was properly conducted and reached a proportionate decision.

Tribunal’s conclusion and reasons

14. The panel concluded that the Respondent did prove on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence supplied that it had acted reasonably under Rule 9(2) in removing the Applicant from the register for the following reasons:

15. Allegation iii) is in our view sufficient on its own to establish that the appellant should be removed from the register. The appellant suggests, at paragraph 80, that she did not regard putting false information about her current employer, into her re-registration form, as being dishonest because it was counter signed by her former employer (and former partner). She claims she did not realise it would constitute dishonesty because “he had been my employer and he had counter signed it”. We reject that explanation as disingenuous. The appellant submitted forms which omitted any reference to her current employer, an employer which was undertaking an investigation into her, instead submitting a previous employer’s details and falsely claiming that this was her current employer. In this way she not only hid her current employer, but hid the fact of her investigation from the committee. We find that was a calculated act to conceal the position from the committee. There were obvious advantages to the appellant if this were to succeed, since it would clearly smooth her re registration path. The appellant’s explanation that she did not think it dishonest because her former employer was prepared to countersign these false statements does not indicate in any way that she could consider these as being honest statements.

16. We note that the appellant in explaining that her current employers would not countersign her re-registration form gave details of a conversation held in late August or early September 2009 (at paragraph 71 and 72 of the appellant’s statement). However the form which she claimed to have already posted to the General Social Care Council at the time of that conversation was not received until 2^nd November 2009. That is not a time lag explained by postal delays; rather it is an example of inaccuracy on the part of the appellant. In any event the allegation made by the appellant at that stage is that her present employers told her in August/September that the form was the wrong one, not that they refused to fill it in. Her response was to tell them that it had now already gone, which must have been false given that it arrived in early November at the General Social Care Council. We do not in those circumstances attribute the failure to enter her current employer (Hillingdon Social Services) on the form as being caused by any omission by anyone at Hillingdon.      

17. We also note that it was open to the appellant to record on the form who her current employers were and indicate there were problems having it countersigned, had that been the position.     

18. We note also in this context that there is no name attributed to suggesting this falsity, rather the appellant states “One of the agencies suggested I just use one of my previous employers and I went along with the idea.” We note that this is vague, unlikely, given how serious any reasonable person would see such a false statement to be, and we find that it is an example of the appellant dissembling.

19. We find this to be a calculated act of dishonesty aimed at enabling her re-registration in circumstances which the appellant feared it may be in jeopardy, in short the appellant behaved dishonestly to promote her own interests. That is far below the standards expected of a registrant to demonstrate suitability.

20. The appellant alleges that the committee did not give her proper notice of the hearing. We note that the appellant completed the address 145 Frobisher Gardens, Chatford Hundred, Greys, Essex, RM16 6EZ, in her application of November 2009, and notice of the hearing was sent there on 17^th November 2010, and also that on 6^th May 2010 the appellant had responded to the respondent with an undated letter apparently in response to letters sent to that address on 12^th February 2010, 16^th March 2010 and 21^st April 2010. The notification of 17^th November 2010 was signed for (albeit with an indecipherable signature). That is on the face of matters proper notice. We do not accept that the appellant was unaware of the hearing, rather looking at the evidence as a whole we find that she chose not to attend fearing the questions she would face for which she had little answer.         

21. The appellant disputes allegation i) that she failed to notify her managers at Hillingdon of her children being made subject to a care protection plan. We note that she was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing, and this finding remains, we note that the managers involved deny she informed them of this, although there were conversations about the children’s problems generally. Looking at the evidence as a whole we find that this allegation is established. In particular the appellant in effect concealed the same matters form the General Social Care Council by concealing her employment and her disciplinary proceedings, we find that is powerful evidence as to who is likely to be telling the truth about notification to Hillingdon.

22. The appellant disputes allegation ii). The appellant denies that she had notification on 29^th March, but accepts that by early July she had received notification. She alleges at paragraph 61 of her statement that she expected her managers to complete the form and post it. On receiving notification of being removed form the register she claims to have raised the failure to post the form with her managers on a daily basis (paragraph 64). We reject this explanation, the appellant could at anytime have completed the form and explained to the General Social Care Council that she was having problems obtaining the counter signature, and as we have previously observed the timeline of telling the managers in August/September that the form had been dispatched did not fit with the known facts. We note also that despite the managers not having signed the form, and this being a matter which she had reminded them was essential on a regular basis for two months, no one seems to have questioned how the appellant could now manage without the signatures. We reject the allegations of the appellant and find that she was aware of the necessity to register but failed to do so despite reminders and the allegation is made out.    

23. In those circumstances the committee were right to find that the breaches of the rules were made out and that the appellant should not be registered as not being of good character or conduct. 

24.  In the light of these conclusions the appeal is dismissed, and the decision notified on 16^th December 2010 is confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision

 

 

Appeal dismissed. The decision of the Respondent is confirmed.

 

 

 

Judge John Aitken

Deputy Chamber President.

 

8 July 2011