Snell v General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 16 (HESC) (05 February 2009)
 Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers - Cancellation of registration

ROSEMARY SNELL

-v-

THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2008 1429.SW]

-Before-

Melanie Lewis
(Nominated Tribunal Judge)
Richard Beeden
(Specialist Member)
Jennifer Cross
(Specialist Member)

Decision

Heard on 30 January 2008
Care Standards Tribunal Service
18 Pocock Street
London SE1 0BW

Representation

In accordance with an order of the Tribunal dated 5 January 2009 this appeal will be determined on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties before 23 January 2009. 

Appeal 

The Appellant appeal 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.

3.	 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

4.	The Appellant is a Social Worker of some 25 years experience. The Council registered the Appellant on 23 March 2005 and her registration was due to be renewed on 22 March 2008. This was the first time that Social Workers had to apply to be registered and possibly because the Respondent was aware that they would receive a large number of applications for renewal, the ‘renewal pack’ was sent on 14 December 2007 some 84 days before the Appellant’s registration was due to expire. Rule 6 (3) of the 2008 Rules only requires the Council to send out those documents 28 days before. 

5.	There are three key facts, which the Appellant disputes.  The Appellant claims that she sent in the completed application form with the supporting documentation. Unfortunately she is not able to provide a copy of that form, to establish when she sent it. Neither has she been able to provide evidence that the supporting documents were appropriately verified and signed by her managers. 

6.	The Appellant was sent a standard form letter on 11 August 2008, informing the Appellant that if she didn’t submit an application for renewal, steps would be taken to remove her from the Social Care register. That prompted the Appellant to take action. The Appellant claims that she telephoned the Respondent and asked to be sent a further registration form. A member of the Respondent’s staff recorded the conversation as ‘late renewal APP – Orig app was not received and will send another to the GSSC ASAP’.  The Respondent understood that to mean that the Appellant had a form and would send it in. 

7.	There is then a third factual issue in dispute. The Appellant claims that she because she was concerned that she had not received any further forms; she made a number of subsequent telephone calls to the Council. No record of those calls appears in the notes. Neither does the Respondent have any notice of sending out a further form. The Appellant claims that she was finally issued with a renewal form November 2008. She completed it and sent it for verification to the Director of the local authority and it was posted on 24 November 2008 with a first class stamp. The envelope was returned to her 2 months later by the Royal Mail because she had put insufficient postage on it. The Appellant had no confidence in the administrative procedures of the Respondent and speculates that her original application was similarly refused by the GSSC and was lying in a Royal Mail office marked unable to deliver. 

Conclusions

8.	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. 

9.	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. The Appellant would not be in this position had she kept a copy of her original application and ensured that the application was sent recorded delivery and/or with the right postage.  

10.	This case was listed before us as a paper case.  However there are 3 factual issues that we had to decide. We look at each point in dispute individually but in the context of the evidence overall, On the limited evidence before us and the Appellant has not satisfied us that she sent in the original application form which was lost either by the Royal Mail or the Respondent. It is reasonable to expect her to provide some evidence to support that contention. 

11.	Whilst the recording of the telephone conversation on 11 August might be a mis understanding, the Respondent then has no record of having sent out a further renewal form. After some delay the Appellant then sent it in with verified documents. It is not clear why there should be a delay if she already had the verified documents.  

12.	This is not therefore a case where the Appellant’s application went wrong on just one point, about which she has been able to provide a clear and supported explanation. We consider this was a proportionate response. The Appellant has the opportunity to apply for restoration to the Register under Rule 10. 

Accordingly, our decision is that the appeal is dismissed. 

APPEAL DISMISSED

Melanie Lewis
(Nominated First Tier Tribunal Judge)
Jennifer Cross
(Specialist Member)
Richard Beeden
(Specialist Member)

Date: 5 February 2009