In this latest episode of how the GSCC make a complete balls of things you can discover the depth of incompetence, laziness and ineptitude demonstrated by the Regulator. Read on only if you want a good laugh at their expense whilst again, in usual scary fashion, trying to destroy another social work career.
These people (GSCC) need culling, soon.
When was the last time you so a press release on the GSCC website front page that explains that they got things badly wrong? See: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/
When they were put under special measures – yep and had little option.
When their Chief Executive was suspended and subsequently sacked? Yes they did then too.
When criticised by the Employment tribunal – yep, but that was very defensive and incompetent.
When they totally messed up over Lisa Arthurworrey – yep, but that too was rather defensive.
Generally those nice people at the GSCC hope that the facts never get made known to the wider public, in the long and now growing list of complete bollocks they generally make on issues of conduct, and or addressing complex issues relating to Registration of social care workers.
At one time they argued, “…………..we are a young organisation and learning…….” Mmmmmmmmm! Yeah, sure!
Now these nice GSCC people get it right most of the time, to be fair, but usually only because others have done the work for them and supplied the facts to them – like employers or the Courts.
Simple, no effort other than checking out that the matter has been reasonably dealt with (a no brainer with the Courts) by the referrer e.g. the former employer, AND that misconduct as distinct from capability issues have ACTUALLY taken place AND that action such as a Suspension Order is timely and absolutely necessary. Now you would think if the Registrant had left the Country that the decision to Suspend might have a bearing on the meaning of necessity i.e. why suspend someone outside of their jurisdiction.
It seems to me quite simple, even for the most simple minded of GSCC officers, Committee Members and legal officers.
This is the case of Evan Philip Morkel-Clemens who is South African of German decent (by his mother’s family) who was qualified and EVENTUALLY first Registered and then suspended as a qualified Social Worker by the GSCC.
EVENTUALLY, in this instance, means that Morkel-Clemens was Registered by the GSCC almost 12 months after he applied. Yes, 12 months – albeit he had a recognised qualification from South Africa. In the Interim 12 months his employer West Berkshire (i.e. Newbury) employed him first as a social work assistant and later (before Registration – thus unlawfully) as a social worker in a FRONTLINE service area which he never intended to be working in – he had no experience of child protection – his background being in education settings, counselling of young people and family support.
The Care Standards (First Tier) Tribunal (http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/ ) have dealt thoroughly firstly with the GSCC but also with West Berkshire Council (http://www.westberks.gov.uk/) who were BOTH utterly incompetent in dealing with the case of Mr Morkel-Clemens.
The case matter is set out in forensic detail here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1058
Forensic is not a term however one could apply to the GSCC OFFICERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS or LEGAL ADVISORS. Forensic is an unknown term at the GSCC as it requires a modicum of intelligence, usually a large degree of analysis and investigation (e.g. work) and something called care, professionalism and integrity. You know, those things the GSCC aim to uphold in others. Yeah!
Well, this is what the Care Standards Tribunal found:
“Having carefully considered the papers and the written arguments submitted, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Respondent Council [GSCC] and by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Council in this case was wholly unfair to the Applicant and that decision of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee was unreasonable and not supported by any compelling evidence that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public interest for the Applicant’s registration to be suspended pending a decision by the Conduct Committee in relation to a formal allegation that the Applicant was guilty of misconduct.”
After referencing various parts of the Rules governing the GSCC the Care Standards Tribunal remarked:
“The Tribunal was not satisfied that, in this case, the Council properly followed the procedure set out in the Rules.”
And the Tribunal went on to explain why:
“Much of the material placed before the Respondent Council by West Berkshire Council did not amount to a complaint within the meaning of the Rules. There was much material designed to establish that the Applicant was a poor performer and worthy of dismissal but little to establish that he was guilty of misconduct. It does not appear that any attempt was made to isolate “a specific allegation or allegations of misconduct”. The mass of material was simply amalgamated with the Applicant’s registration file and handed on.”
Furthermore:
“Little or no analysis of the case against the Applicant appears to have been undertaken prior to the hearing before the Preliminary Proceedings Committee. The material presented by West Berkshire Council was apparently accepted without further investigation or clarification.”
“Little or no analysis…… “Now that is a surprise, NOT. It requires something those nice people at the GSCC find difficult –work. Where have we heard all this before?
The Care Standards were not holding back, they added in this long transcript:
“The document purporting to provide details of the allegations upon which the application to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee was based was hopelessly defective. It was merely a slightly modified transcription of the document prepared by West Berkshire Council as a “list of concerns” about the Applicant’s abilities and repeatedly used by that Council when considering the Applicant’s performance. This was never intended to be a detailed list of allegations of misconduct. In its modified form the document was a list of very general allegations of misconduct. Nothing in it could properly be regarded as “specific”.
“Hopelessly defective……….” I like that one! Why be specific – just feel the width one can hear the GSCC people saying!
The Care Standards continues:
“The document purporting to be a “statement setting out why the registration of the registrant should be suspended” was similarly deficient. It contained no details and relied upon potentially confusing cross-references to other documents. The seriousness of the allegations was referred to but, since those allegations had not been specifically identified, that reference lacked meaning. The “most serious” allegation was said to relate “to lack of skills in assessing risk and responding in a timely manner”. However, the documents incorporated by reference contained no specific allegation of failure by the Applicant to assess a risk and/or to respond to it. Recipients of the document would have had to guess to which of the various matters referred to in the papers this allegation related. No evidence relating to the likelihood of any further incidents of harm to service users or others, occurring in the period before the final disposal of the complaint, was specifically identified in the document. There was a submission to the effect that “the allegation in question, if proved, would demonstrate misconduct of a serious nature such that public protection would be compromised”. Since “the allegation in question” was not identified, this submission was meaningless. It was further submitted that “the registrant’s actions have led to a breakdown of trust”. This was neither evidence nor a legitimate submission since the relevant actions of the Applicant and the identity of those who might have lost trust in him remained unspecified. It amounted to little more than a vague assertion that the Applicant had been properly and fairly dismissed by his employer.”
“Meaningless………..”, “vague assertion…………..” are not or should not be terms associated with a Regulator. What were the GSCC doing for Gawd sake? But it does not end there:
“Later in the document purporting to be a statement setting out why the registration of the registrant should be suspended it was noted that the Applicant might be currently living in Switzerland. No attempt was made to confront the proposition that no conceivable need for the protection of members of the public could arise if the Applicant, who has attained normal retirement age, was out of the jurisdiction and was not working or attempting to work as a social worker. It was simply submitted that there was “a real likelihood of repetition” (of unspecified bad and/or dangerous behaviour) because the Applicant would be “free to return to practise in this country” if not suspended. It was also said that the West Berkshire Council would no longer be able “to act as a safeguard” since they had dismissed the Applicant. The absurdity of the latter proposition was apparently not recognised by the author of the document. The Applicant only had dealings, as a social worker, with members of the public in England between February 2007 and November 2008 because West Berkshire Council appointed him, probably improperly and illegally, to a social work post and confirmed that appointment, notwithstanding that the Applicant was not, as they knew, registered as a social worker at the material time.”
The author of the GSCC report was “absurd.” Is that what the CST said – yes. Oooooooooooops! That is a new adjective to add to the catalogue of descriptions of the GSCC staff – I just love it!
And yet there is more:
“The Respondent Council [GSCC] placed before the Preliminary Proceedings Committee a voluminous, unedited bundle of documents, many of which were duplicates and others of which had no relevance to the matter in hand. This placed a burden upon the Committee which they might reasonably have regarded as intolerable. More importantly, it placed the Applicant in an intolerable position. He had no reasonable prospect of being able to determine, in advance, the documents to which attention would be given and those which would be set aside as irrelevant. He was thus unfairly hampered in the preparation of his case. The relevant documents should have been extracted from the material supplied by West Berkshire and properly presented both to the Committee and to the Applicant in a coherent form.”
See what I mean by lazy? Believe me this is fairly typical of the GSCC.
The Care Standards Tribunal adds:
“Any accused person faced with general allegations can only respond with general denials, which will inevitably appear unconvincing. This is obviously unfair.”
And when, exactly, were the GSCC last known to have INTENDED to act with fairness? Never – in my long examination of their work. Wilt will let you know if that changes.
Is it intentional or just stupidity and laziness – in reality probably equal measures of all three, I suspect. There are some not very nice people at the GSCC as well as stupid ones – so beware. Being lazy seems just par for the course.
In this rather helpful adjudication the Care Standards Tribunal refine their observations further (and should act as good advice for Registrants and as a marker for the GSCC) as follows:
“The absence of a clear statement of the specific allegations relied upon or to be relied upon was particularly unfortunate in this case because the Applicant was, and is, aggrieved by the apparent shift of the case against him from one involving lack of capability to one involving allegations of misconduct.”
They explain:
“The potentially useful references, by the Presenting Officer, to the alleged breaches of the Code of Practice during the hearing highlighted the complete lack of specificity which ran throughout this case. Mr Grant recited nine provisions of the Code which he suggested that the Applicant had breached. However, he did not specify when and in what circumstances those breaches were alleged to have occurred. For example, Mr Grant read out paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Practice, which requires social workers to “meet relevant standards of practice and working in a lawful, safe and effective way”. He then commented that “genuine concerns” had been “raised about [the Applicant’s] ability to meet relevant standards”. Mr Grant thus completely missed the opportunity to specify each occasion upon which it was, or was going to be, alleged that the Applicant failed to work in a “lawful, safe and effective way”. Similarly, Mr Grant read out the provision of the Code of Practice (paragraph 6.2) relating to the maintenance of clear and accurate records. He then commented that “there have been concerns raised about the quality of core assessments … and about reports generally” but failed to identify any specific core assessment or any other report prepared by the Applicant which was alleged to lack clarity or to be inaccurate. In any event, it was too late for this task to be undertaken during the hearing. The identification of specific faults should have been undertaken before the hearing and properly communicated in writing to the Committee and to the Applicant.”
And:
“The Committee’s reasons, given orally by the Chairman, reflected the unsatisfactory nature of the papers placed before the Committee and the unsatisfactory nature of the hearing, including the inability of the Applicant to address the relevant issues. The references to “the allegations concerning lack of knowledge and understanding of procedures, lack of skills in assessing risk, poor time management and lack of ownership of cases” and the further references to the lack of “evidence of change” suggest that the Committee followed the Presenting Officer’s invitation to pay attention to the opinions expressed by the Applicant’s managers as to the Applicant’s general incompetence. They also suggest that the Committee did not identify or isolate the specific allegations of misconduct that they might have found in the papers. Having failed to identify and/or isolate the allegations, the Committee could not determine the gravity or otherwise of each of them. The Chairman made no reference to any specific allegation of misconduct on the part of the Applicant. His reference to the “gravity of the allegations, their nature and seriousness and the period of time over which they occurred” had little or no meaning in the absence of any findings as to precisely what those allegations were.”
And to add insult to injury:
“The Committee’s written reasons for their decision were deficient in that they were merely a recitation of the test to be applied and of the matters to which the Committee is required to have regard. The decision lacked specificity and did not enable the Applicant or the Tribunal to discern any valid reasons for the Applicant’s suspension.”
Their further observation:
“The decision should have contained a concise account of the findings of the Committee as to the specific allegations of misconduct made, or to be made, against the Applicant; a concise account of the findings made by the Committee as to the seriousness or otherwise of each of those allegations and a meaningful summary of the factors considered by the Committee when arriving at the conclusion that it was necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public interest for the Applicant to be suspended pending investigation of those allegations.”
The tribunal concluded:
“The Respondent’s decision dated 3 August 2009 to make an Interim Suspension Order in respect of Mr Evan Philip Morkel-Clemens for a period of six months shall not have effect.”
So, will the GSCC ever learn? I fear not – there have been too many repeats of the same errors over numerous years. And I add this submission made by the GSCC to the Care Standards Tribunal, as follows:
“……..the Conduct Committee will, in due course, consider the allegations of misconduct and it is not for the Tribunal to usurp their function by making findings of fact now…………”
“Usurp………..” Now, I kind of think that may have upset a few people at the Care Standards Tribunal (CST). So the GSCC do not feel the CST have a role in these matters – all I can say is thank Gawd they do.
The GSCC simply have utter contempt for the law.
As a reminder, find the CST adjudication here:
http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1058
Wilt