[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber) >> Oke v The General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 172 (HESC) (29 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/HESC/2009/172.html Cite as: [2009] UKFTT 172 (HESC)

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

 


Susan Oke v The General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 172 (HESC) (29 July 2009)
Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers
Cancellation of registration

Susan Oke

-v- The General Social Care Council [2009]1529.SW -Before-

Andrea Rivers (Tribunal Judge)

Janice Funnell (Specialist Member)

Geraldine Matthison (Specialist Member)

DECISION

Heard on 17^th July 2009 at Care Standards Tribunal, Pocock Street, London

Background

1. This was an appeal against a decision, made by the General Social Care Council (the respondent) to remove the appellant's name from their Social Care Register. The appellant was informed of that decision in a letter from the Head of Registration, dated 2^nd March 2009.
2. The reason for the removal was that the appellant's registration had lapsed because she had failed to renew it.
3. The appellant lodged an appeal to this tribunal on 20^th May 2009 and at a Directions Hearing on 29^th June 2009 His Honour Judge David Pearl noted that both parties were content for the matter to be dealt with on the papers alone. Accordingly the appeal was considered by the tribunal without the need for either party to attend.

The Law

4. S68(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides that on an appeal against such a decision:

"…the tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect".

5. The rules governing the registration of social workers are set out in the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008.
6. Rule 6 states that once a name has been entered on a register the entry remains effective for a period of three years. Rule 6(3) states that the Council is to send the Registrant a notice of expiry and an application form for renewal at least 28 days before the due date.
7. Rule 7 deals with the procedure for renewing registration. It provides that:

"the Council shall only grant an application to renew registration where –

………. (b) it has received satisfactory evidence…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

(d)…. it has received payment of the renewal of registration fee…

8. Rule 9(2) provides that:

Where –

(a) the Registrant has failed to make any application for renewal of registration or to pay the renewal fee…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.

9. Rule 10(1) provides that:

Save where the removal from the Register was as a result of a determination made by the Council's Conduct Committee, an application for restoration may be made to the Council.

The Evidence

10. The appellant was registered by the GSCC on 16^th November 2005. The documentation provided at that time made it clear that the registration would need to be renewed after three years. Thus the due date for renewal was to be16^th November 2008.
11. On 21^st August 2008, some twelve weeks before the renewal date, the respondent sent the appellant a 'renewal pack', reminding her that she would need to renew her registration if she wished to continue to practise as a social worker and that she needed to complete and return the renewal form by the due date.
12. They sent her a further reminder on 22^nd January 2009, some nine weeks after the due expiry date. They told her that if she did not send a completed renewal form within then next 14 days they would "begin the process of removing your name from the Social Care Register."
13. On 3^rd February the appellant emailed the respondent's Lapsed Renewals section to say that she wanted to remain registered and was completing the application form. The respondent replied the next day, acknowledging her email and urging her to send them the completed form, payment and Post Registration Training and Learning record without delay as she risked being removed from the register.
14. On 24^th February the appellant emailed again. She said she had not completed the necessary Post Registration Training and Learning requirement and needed some advice about this. She received a standard acknowledgement to say that her query would be answered in the next 15 days. The message once again warned, in bold letters:

"It is important that you act as quickly as possible as until we receive your complete application, you are at risk of being removed from the Register."

15. On 2^nd March a letter, signed by Gail Gibson, Head of Registration, was sent to the appellant, informing her that her name had been removed from the register.
16. Three days later, on 5^th March, the Lapsed Renewals section sent their promised response to the appellant's email of 24^th February. They asked her to telephone them as soon as possible. However by that time her name had already been removed from the register.
17. In the Reasons for Appeal on her appeal form the appellant wrote: "The decision to remove my name is wrong as I was in the middle of seeking advice regarding renewal/registration when the decision to remove my name was made."

Decision

18. The appellant was informed when she first registered that she would have to renew her registration in three years' time.
19. She was sent a reminder long before the renewal date, giving her ample time to deal with any problems which needed sorting out before then.
20. Although her registration was due to expire on 16^th November 2008 the respondent still did not remove her name from the register. It was not until 22^nd January that they sent their final warning and even then they gave her a further two weeks to renew her registration.
21. She herself did not contact them until 3^rd February. This was over five months since the first reminder and over two months after her registration should have been renewed. Even then she still had not completed the requirements for registration renewal, so in any event, there would have been some further delay before she became eligible to re-register.
22. The respondent gave her a generous amount of time to renew her registration. They replied promptly to all correspondence. They allowed a significant period of time to elapse after the due date before removing her name from the register. They warned her on a number of occasions of the consequences of delay.
23. Moreover, even though her registration has now lapsed, the appellant may, if she wishes, apply to restore her registration, as set out in Rule 10 above.
24. In our view the respondent acted reasonably, proportionately and indeed helpfully. Taking into account all these circumstances we have decided to dismiss this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Andrea Rivers (Tribunal Judge)

Janice Funnell (Specialist Member)

Geraldine Matthison (Specialist Member)