[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) >> Ferguson v The General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 171 (HESC) (29 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/HESC/2009/171.html Cite as: [2009] UKFTT 171 (HESC)

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

 


David Ferguson v The General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 171 (HESC) (29 July 2009)
Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers
Cancellation of registration

David Ferguson

-v- The General Social Care Council [2009]1520.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 respondent dated 19^th February 2009.
2. The appellant lodged an appeal to this tribunal on 8^th May 2009. As neither party requested an oral hearing the appeal was determined on the written evidence of both parties.

The Law

3. 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".

4. The rules governing the registration of social workers are set out in the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008.
5. 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.
6. 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

(iii) 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…

7. Rule 9(2) provides that:

Where –

(j) 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.

8. 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

9. The appellant was registered by the GSCC on 15^th June 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 be15th June 2008.
10. On 20^th March 2008, some twelve weeks before the renewal date, the respondent wrote to the appellant reminding him of the date when his registration was due to expire and that he needed to send a completed renewal application before that date.
11. On 26^th November 2008, over five months after the due expiry date, they sent him a Final Notice of Expiry. The letter said that if they did not receive the renewal application within then next 14 days they would "begin the process of removing your name from the Social Care Register."
12. On 3^rd December the appellant contacted the respondent and told them that he was going to download an application form and return it urgently.
13. On 21^st January the respondent received his application form. Three of the sections in it did not meet the requirement for original signatures, so the respondent sent the form back to him by return. The covering letter drew attention to the need to provide original signatures and highlighting the areas where this was necessary.
14. On 19^th February the respondent sent the appellant a letter informing him that his name had been removed from the Social Care Register.
15. In the Reasons for Appeal on his appeal form the appellant wrote: "I was late sending in the registration form. My application form was returned to me with areas 4, 5 and 7 highlighted. Before I could rectify this, a letter arrived telling me my name had been removed from the register. I now wish to apply to re-register."

Decision

16. The appellant was informed when he first registered that he would have to renew his registration in three years' time.
17. He was sent a reminder long before the renewal date but did not reply to it. The respondent did not then contact him until more than five months after the expiry date when they sent him a Final Notice of Expiry giving him 14 days to respond.
18. Although he then contacted the respondent within seven days and told the respondent he was dealing with the renewal as a matter of urgency he did not do so and in fact his form was not received until 21^st January, some six weeks later. He has given no explanation for this delay.
19. The respondent informed him by return of the need to re-submit his application with original signatures. By then it should have been absolutely clear to him that he needed to do this immediately, or at least to contact the respondent to let them know if there were any problems about obtaining original signatures. However, four weeks later they still had not heard from him.
20. In our view he was given ample time and many opportunities to comply with the requirements for renewal.
21. In all the circumstances we find that the respondent acted reasonably and appropriately and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.
22. In any event, we note that on the appellant's appeal application form he says that he wishes to apply to re-register. So far as we are aware there is nothing to prevent him from doing this, without recourse to this tribunal. Indeed the letter informing him of his removal from the register gives details of how to go about it, pursuant to Rule 10, as set out in paragraph 8 above.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Andrea Rivers (Tribunal Judge)

Janice Funnell (Specialist Member)

Geraldine Matthison (Specialist Member)