Schedule 6: Social workers/social care workers 
Category Cancellation of registration 
[2009] UKFTT 22 (HESC)
BRIDGET WILLIAMS

-v-

THE GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL

[2008 1446.SW]

-Before-

IAN ROBERTSON
(Nominated Tribunal Judge)
MARILYN ADOLPHE
(Specialist Member)
LINDA REDFORD
(Specialist Member)

Decision

Heard on 16 March 2009
Care Standards Tribunal Service
18 Pocock Street
London SE1 0BW

Representation

In accordance with an order of the Tribunal dated 26 February 2009 this appeal will be determined on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties before 9 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.

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 was registered as a Social Worker on 15 April 2005 for 3 years. On 17 January 2008, a ‘renewal pack’ was sent to the Appellant. There appears to be no dispute that this was received by the Appellant.

5. The Appellant states that she went on maternity leave on 14 April 2008 and assumed it was possible to suspend her registration. She says that she tried ringing and E mailing the GSCC but got no response. She also searched the GSCC website. She did not follow matters up.

6. On 16 October she received a letter from the GSCC advising her that her registration had lapsed. She was advised by the GSCC that provided her application was received within 7 days it would be processed. She was advised to mark the application for the attention of the lapsed renewals department. She claims to have sent her application to the GSCC on 6 November.

7. The Respondent never received the application and heard nothing further from the Appellant. On 19 December they advised her that she had been removed from the register. 

Conclusion
 
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. 

9.	We unanimously conclude that it was the correct decision.

11.	There is a straight conflict of evidence as to whether the application was sent on 6 November.  We would have thought that the Appellant would have kept a copy of her application and attached it to her Notice of Appeal. We would have further thought that she would have sent the application by registered post or recorded delivery. Given all the problems we would have also thought that the Appellant would have sought to confirm receipt. In the absence of any such proof we cannot conclude that the application was sent. Our decision does not however turn on this issue. As even if the application had been sent on 6 November it was 7 months out of time 

12. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that they maintain their registration. The Appellant received her renewal pack whilst still at work and should have taken steps to reregister at that point. It is her individual responsibility to ensure that the time for re-registration does not pass. There is no excuse for the Appellant not seeking renewal in time. She should not have made assumptions regarding suspension. Indeed how could such a suspension have taken place when the GSCC received no application from her for this. 

13. We think it would be helpful to set out Rule 10 of the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008 as careful consideration of these really impacts upon this appeal and leaves us wondering why this route was not followed;

“10(1) Save where removal from the register was a result of a determination made by the Council’s Conduct Committee, an application for restoration may be made to the Council.”

Where such an application is made there is payment of a fee and the application is then treated as an initial application.

14.	In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the Respondent responded in a proportionate manner having given the appellant information in good time in clear terms, several ways and opportunities to avoid deregistration even some months after the due date and given that the appellant could apply to restore her social work status under rule 10.

15.	 The appropriate course now is for the Appellant to apply for restoration of registration.

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

APPEAL DISMISSED

Date: 23rd  March 2009