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: 7th 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 17th 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 22nd 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 24th
July 2009. On 2nd 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 16th 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 9th 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 2nd
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 17th November 2010, and also
that on 6th May 2010 the appellant had responded to the respondent
with an undated letter apparently in response to letters sent to that address
on 12th February 2010, 16th March 2010 and 21st
April 2010. The notification of 17th 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 29th
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 16th December
2010 is confirmed.
Decision
Appeal dismissed. The decision of the
Respondent is confirmed.
Judge John Aitken
Deputy Chamber President.
8 July 2011
