Letitia Uko v The General Social Care Council [2009] UKFTT 173 (HESC) (29 July 2009)<BR>Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers<BR>Cancellation of registration

Letitia Uko
-v-
The General Social Care Council

[2009]1540.SW

-Before-

Andrea Rivers		       (Tribunal Judge)
Janice Funnell		     (Specialist Member)
Geraldine Matthison	     (Specialist Member)

DECISION

Heard on 17th 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 20th March 2009.
2.	The appellant lodged an appeal to this tribunal on 8th 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
(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…

7.	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.
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 26th April 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 be 26th April 2008.
10.	On 7th February 2008, some ten weeks before the renewal date, the respondent wrote to the appellant reminding her of the date when her registration was due to expire and that she needed to send a completed renewal application before that date. 
11.	On 11th November 2008, over five months  after the due expiry date, they sent her 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 14th November the appellant emailed the respondent to say that she would be “submitting her renewal application very soon.” The respondent replied to her on the same day, confirming that they looked forward to receiving her application and providing her with contact details in case she required further information.
13.	By 20th March the respondent still had not received the renewal application and the appellant had not made any further contact with them. On that day they wrote to her to say that her name had been removed from the Social Care Register.
14.	In the Reasons for Appeal on her appeal form the appellant wrote that she had forgotten to deal with the renewal because of personal problems which had led her to become severely depressed. She said, “I am pleading with the GSCC to show some leniency and restore my name to the register and allow me to renew my lapsed registration.”

 Decision
15.	The appellant was informed when she first registered that she would have to renew her registration in three years’ time.
16.	She was sent a reminder ten weeks before the renewal date, long before the period of 28 days required by the Rule 6(3) above. She did not reply to it. The respondent did not then contact her until more than five months after the expiry date when they sent her a Final Notice of Expiry giving her 14 days to respond. 
17.	At this point she did contact the respondent and undertook to deal with the matter “very soon”. The respondent replied to her immediately providing her contact details, in case she needed any help. She still took no action.
18.	Her name was not finally removed from the register until March 20th 2009, nearly a year after the due date of renewal and over four months after she had promised to deal with the matter “very soon.” Under Rule 9(2)(a) the respondent would have been entitled to remove her name from the register on April 26th 2008. 
19.	The appellant was given a generous amount of time to renew her registration and offered help should she need it.
20.	In all the circumstances we find that the respondent acted reasonably and proportionately in removing her name from the register at that time.
21.	However, we acknowledge that when the respondent made the decision the appellant had not informed them about her severe depression and in coming to our decision we have taken into account this further information. 
22.	Nevertheless, it does not change our view that it remains appropriate for her name to be removed from the register. She has not provided any medical evidence in support of the new information about her illness and in our view it is unlikely that it would have prevented her from even contacting the respondent to tell them about the problems she was experiencing, especially in view of the length of time available to her to deal with the renewal. 
23.	It is therefore our decision to dismiss this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Andrea Rivers		(Tribunal Judge)
Janice Funnell		(Specialist Member)
Geraldine Matthison		(Specialist Member)