| SPOTLIGHT |
The Care Standards Tribunal has heavily criticised both the General Social Care Council and Southampton City Council over their conduct of a case in which a social worker lost her registration to practise.
Southampton sacked Beverley Peek over a series of matters which the council said “verged on” gross misconduct. But she was on a final warning because of a benefit fraud conviction in 2004 and was sacked without notice as having breached a ‘final warning’.
The council also said she should have disclosed that she was fined £175 for failing in 2009 to supply log book to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for a car she had owned for a few days before returning it to a garage.
Ms Peek appealed against the loss of her registration to the First Tier Tribunal, but the GSCC applied to have her case struck out on the grounds that it stood no reasonable prospect of success.
Finding in Ms Peek’s favour, tribunal judge Liz Goldthorpe attacked the GSCC’s stance.
“Any regulatory organisation that takes the view it is appropriate to apply routinely for this draconian measure in most appeals, regardless of the merits of the case, could be said to have a particularly high handed attitude to its functions,” she said.
“At the very least it seems to point to a rather blunt approach to the appeal process that smacks of an unnecessarily dismissive view.”
Applying for strike outs “quite unnecessarily wastes public resources in the form of judicial and administrative time and must cause perfectly legitimate applicants unnecessary distress, inconvenience and expense,’ the judge said.
GSCC director of regulatory operations Michael Andrews, said: “We do not have a policy to apply for a strike out in every case, and are committed to making registrants aware of their right to appeal decisions made by GSCC conduct panels.
“We believe that this right is essential to ensure a fair conduct process. However, we acknowledge the comments of the Care Standards Tribunal and are currently working to see if there are any lessons to be learnt.”
Southampton had said Ms Peek failed to record her caseload but the tribunal found she was the only qualified social worker in a team of 18 and “we gained the impression of a large and overwhelming caseload in a chaotic and unworkable setting where there were unclear procedures and the expectation of a quick throughput”.
The tribunal also said it was inappropriate for a casework manager and supervisor, who was the subject of a grievance taken by Ms Peek within the previous 12 months, to be have been responsible for investigating a complaint against her.
It “attached no weight whatsoever” to the motoring this offence and was “at a loss to understand why [Southampton] should have placed such weight upon it in their decision-making process”.
The judgment concluded: “We have no hesitation in concluding that she has satisfied us as to her suitability to be registered as a social worker.”
Southampton declined to comment.
