[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) >> Ardern v Gerneral Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 25 (HESC) (16 April 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/HESC/2009/25.html Cite as: [2009] UKFTT 25 (HESC)

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

Ardern v Gerneral Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 25 (HESC) (16 April 2009)
Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers
Cancellation of registration

Helen Louise Ardern

-v-

THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2009] 1461.SW

-Before-

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated Tribunal Judge)

Dr. Jill Low

(Specialist Member)

Paul Thompson

(Specialist Member)

Decision

Heard on 3 April 2009

Care Standards Tribunal Service

18 Pocock Street

London SE1 0BW

Representation

In accordance with an order of the Tribunal dated 16 March 2009 this appeal will be determined on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties before 30 March 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 Registration as her registration has lapsed.

The burden of proof is upon the Appellant to a balance of probabilities.

The Law

1. The Rules on Registration of Social Workers are now set out in the General Social Care Council (Registration Rules) 2008, which in relevant part state as follows. Rule 6 sets out the duration of the registration, which is for three years.

2. Rule 7 sets out the requirements for the renewal of registration, which states as follows.

7. (1) This rule shall not apply to students.

(2) Where an application for renewal of registration is granted by the Council, the Registrant's entry in the Register will be effective for a further period of three years, subject to removal in accordance with the provisions of these Rules or of the Council's Conduct Rules.

(3) Applications for renewal of registration shall be made on the form approved by the Council for the purpose.

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

(a) it is satisfied that the Applicant has satisfactorily fulfilled any condition or conditions attached to the Applicant's registration; and

(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;

(c) it has received satisfactory evidence that an Applicant has completed the post

registration training and learning requirements set out in SCHEDULE 3; and subject to rule 25, it has received payment of the renewal of registration fee specified by the Council and any annual fee specified in SCHEDULE 2 to these Rules due from the previous period of registration.

2. Rule 9 sets out the conditions for Removal from the register for other reasons

9.

(1) Notwithstanding -

(a) any other provision in these Rules; or

(d) any provisions in the Council's Conduct Rules for the removal of a Registrant's

entry from the Register, where the Council receives written notification of the death of a Registrant, evidenced by the original or certified true copy of a death certificate or such other evidence of death that is acceptable to the Council, it shall remove the Registrant's entry from the Register.

(2) Where -

(a) the Registrant has failed to make any application for renewal of registration or to pay the renewal fee set out in SCHEDULE 2 to 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;

(b) the Registration Committee has considered an application for renewal of registration and directed that the Registrant's entry should be removed from the Register, the Council shall remove the Registrant's entry from the Register; or

(c) the Registrant has made an application, in writing, for voluntary removal from the

Register, the Council may remove the Registrant's entry from the Register, unless that Registrant is the subject of a Complaint.

(3) The Council may at its discretion remove a Registrant's entry from the Register, at the request of that Registrant, where the Council is satisfied that the Registrant is registered with another Care Council.

The Evidence before the Tribunal

3. The Appellant has worked a Social Worker since 1999. The Council registered the Appellant April 2005 and her registration was due to be renewed in April 2008. The respondent states that on 10 January 2008, a 'renewal pack' was sent to the Appellant, advising her of the date upon which her registration was due to expire. The Appellant was sent as a letter on 11 August 2008 advising her that her registration had lapsed but giving her a further 14 days in which to send in her application.
4. This letter prompted a telephone call from the Appellant on 18 August 2008 asking to be sent another renewal pack, although she does not specifically state in her reasons for refusal that she did not get the first one. On the same day she was directed to the forms and guidance notes on the GSCC web site. On 2 September 2008 the Respondent received a further telephone call from the Appellant during which she was advised to return her form as soon as possible.

6. The Appellant claims that she sent the application in but the Respondent did not receive it.

Conclusions

5. 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 his discretion and remove the Appellant from the Register. It is the Appellant's personal responsibility to get registration renewed. The process calls into play a number of the core competences a social worker is expected to demonstrate: time management, an understanding of the statutory scheme, taking personal responsibility for ensuring registration and record keeping.
6. The Appellant has submitted no evidence that she started the application process before her registration was due to lapse in April 2008. That date should have been in her diary, although she was given a prompt if she received the first renewal pack.
7. The Appellant has submitted a copy of the application form, which was signed by her Line Manager on 17 September 2008 and by her on 18 September 2008. In her reasons for appeal she says that she submitted the form, so we take it that she did not leave it to be sent by her Line Manager. She blames the Royal Mail for non-delivery of the form. The Appellant regrets that she did not send the application recorded delivery. Her mother was ill and she did not check if the application had been received, even though she could have been on notice, as the cheque that she had enclosed was not cashed.
8. The Respondent has no record of having received the application form. Despite being overdue in April 2008, the Appellant was given a further opportunity to submit her application. This is not a requirement of the rules. It was incumbent on the Appellant to make sure that it was received. On balance the Appellant has not established that the application form was not just delayed but lost in the post. We consider this was a proportionate response by the Respondent. The Appellant has the opportunity to apply for restoration to the Register under Rule 10.

Accordingly, our Unanimous decision is that the appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Melanie Lewis

(Nominated First Tier Tribunal Judge)

Dr. Jill Low

(Specialist Member)

Paul Thompson

(Specialist Member)

Date: 16 April 2009