[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> Khan v General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 0733(SW) (9 October 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2006/0733(SW).html Cite as: [2006] EWCST 733(SW), [2006] EWCST 0733(SW)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


Khan v General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 0733(SW) (9 October 2006)

Tariq Khan

-v-

General Social Care Council

[2006] 0733.SW

Before

Miss M E Lewis

Nominated Chairman

Margaret Halstead

Caroline Joffe


DECISION

Preliminary Hearing: 20 September 2006

Mr Khan represented himself supported by his partner, Ms Kilea.

Ms Gemma White of Counsel represented the General Social Care Council. Mr Martin Smith (of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, Solicitors, instructed by Council) Solicitor, was also present.

The Appeal

1. The Appellant appeals under Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the refusal of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) to register him on the Social Care Register.
2. The Council applied to strike out the Appellant's appeal under Regulation 4A (1) (b) of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care Standards Tribunal Regulations 2002 as it was outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and/or is otherwise misconceived. The grant of registration is governed by Section 58 CSA 2000 which provides as follows (emphasis added):

'(1) If the Council is satisfied that the applicant -

(a) Is of good character;

(b) Is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in any part of the Register to which his application relates; and

(c) satisfies the following conditions,

It shall grant the application, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit; and in any other case it shall refuse it.

(2) The first condition is that

(a) In the case of an applicant for registration as a social worker -

(i) He has successfully completed a course approved by the Council under Section 63 for persons wishing to become social workers;

(ii) He satisfies the requirement of Section 64; or

(iii) He satisfies any other requirements as to training which the Council may by rules impose in relation to social workers.

3. When the Appellant applied for registration he indicated that he held a Diploma in Social Work from the London School of Economics (LSE) but did not attach a copy of his qualification. Subsequent enquiries made by the Council of the LSE eventually established that the Appellant had not been awarded a Diploma in Social Work. Earlier information suggested that the Diploma had been deferred but not that it had ever been awarded. The full explanation from the LSE is set out at paragraph Z of the Council's response.
4. In the papers submitted the Appellant has sought to argue that he should have been awarded a qualification and that the LSE treated him unfairly and that he was subject to bias. He has not stated that he was awarded a Diploma. We asked him a direct question as to whether he had been awarded a Diploma in Social Work by the London School of Economics. He confirmed that he had not.
5. What the Appellant was keen to argue was that he should have been awarded a qualification. Since leaving the LSE in 1995 he has held three jobs as a Social Worker in three different Local Authorities. He said this was evidence that the LSE had confirmed his Diploma in Social Work qualification. He said there was confusion on the subject.

Conclusion

6. We accepted the submission of the Council and struck out the appeal. The evidence and more particularly the Appellant's own oral concession makes it clear that the Appellant does not hold a Diploma in Social Work from the London School of Economics.
7. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is defined by Section 68 CSA 2000. We accept the submission that the Appellant by his appeal seeks to challenge the LSE's decision not to award him a Diploma in Social Work. The Appellant effectively wanted to re-open that matter and investigate the history. That is not a decision of the Council in respect of registration but a decision of a third party, whether to award him a degree. We accept the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with such a challenge and therefore the appeal should be struck out. The Appellant is not able to fulfil the mandatory condition of registration set out in Section 58 (2) namely that he holds a Diploma in Social Work. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

Order

The Appeal is struck out.

Miss M E Lewis - Chairman

Margaret Halstead

Caroline Joffe

9^th October 2006