Moen v General Social Care Council [2006] EWCST 844(SW) (25 April 2007) 

Mr Havard Jonny Moen
Appellant
and

The General Social Care Council
[2006] 0844.SW
Respondent

Before:
Mrs Meleri Tudur, Chair
Ms M Tynan
Mr B Cairns

Hearing date: 20 April 2007

Appeal
Mr Moen appeals under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the decision made on the 1 November 2006 by The General Social Care Council (“the Respondent”) to refuse his application to be registered as a social worker under Section 64(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000.

Attendance
The Appellant did not attend and was not represented.  On the day before the hearing, Mr Moen informed the Tribunal that he would not attend.
The Respondent was represented by Ms Fenella Morris of Counsel, instructed by Mr Martin Smith of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.  Their witness was Ms Cathrine Clarke. 

The Law
Under Section 54 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (“the Act”) the General Social Care Council (“the Council”) was set up and charged with the responsibility for promoting in England high standards of conduct and practice and training among social workers.  Under section 56 of the Act they were further charged with the responsibility for making and maintaining a register of social workers.  Under section 57, applications for registration shall be made to the Council and section 58, the grounds upon which applications shall be granted.  Section 64(1)(b) provides that an applicant for registration satisfies the requirements of the section, if he has, elsewhere than in England, undergone training in relevant social work and either (i) that training is recognised by the Council as being to a standard sufficient for such registration or (ii) is not so recognised, but the applicant has undergone in England or elsewhere such additional training as the Council may require.  Section 68 of the Act provides the right of appeal against the decision to refuse the application for registration to the Care Standards Tribunal.

Facts
1.	Mr Moen applied for registration as a social worker on 25 November 2004.  He completed a Part 1 Application Form, declaring that he trained in social work in Norway and had been issued with a letter of verification, by the Respondent’s predecessor body, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, identifying his course of study at the University of Volda as being of equivalence to the Diploma in Social Work (DiPSW) qualification in the UK.  The letter allowed Mr Moen to apply for the first part of the registration process but carried a caveat that further proof of his capability might be required by the new regulations which came into force in 2004.

2.	Mr Moen completed the Part 1 and Part II application forms and submitted them with proofs of identity and a personal statement to the Respondent for consideration.  

3.	The form was received by the Respondent on the 10 March 2005.  The cheque for the registration fee was unsigned and a request made for the Appellant to pay the fee.  The fee was received and the application was sent to the International Recognition Service (IRS) assessor, to consider whether Mr Moen’s qualification in Norway addressed the DipSW requirements and would allow him to be registered as a qualified social worker in the UK.

4.	Mr Moen had not provided within his application a copy of his qualification certificate, the inside cover of his form had not been signed and further information was required to ascertain whether his training had met the core competencies of the DipSW.  Further information was requested and the form was returned.  The certificate of qualification was again omitted. 

5.	The Respondent emailed the contact at the University of Volda, with a request for verification of the Appellant’s qualification.  The Respondent did not receive a response from the University, despite sending two emails.

6.	On the 26 July 2005, the appellant was again requested to provide further information, which he failed to provide.

7.	In early 2006, after consideration of the application, the assessor recommended that the application should be refused on the basis that the Appellant had not shown himself to hold a social work qualification in Norway and his personal statement did not confirm that his placements had been appropriate.

8.	On the 16 January 2006, the IRS manager referred the case to another assessor for a second opinion.  The second assessor concluded that the appellant had met the requirements of the DipSW because he claimed that he had qualified as a social worker in Norway in 2003.

9.	The IRS wrote to the Appellant again on the 14 February 2006 requesting a copy of his qualification certificate.

10.	Further correspondence from the IRS notified the Appellant that unless the qualification certificate was produced then his application would not be processed.

11.	On 2 October 2006, the Respondent wrote to the appellant stating that it was considering refusing the application on grounds that the appellant did not meet the training criteria set out in section 64(1)(b) of the Act.  The appellant produced further information about his current work and a transcript of his studies in the University of Volda, but he did not produce evidence of his qualification in social work.

12.	On 1 November 2006, the Respondent wrote a further letter to the appellant informing him that as he had been unable to supply any further information, his application for registration had been refused on the basis that he did not meet he qualification criteria set out in section 64(1)(b) of the Act.

13.	Mr Moen appealed against the decision.  He did not attend the hearing on the 20 April 2006.

14.	At the hearing, Ms Morrison for the Respondent confirmed their position that the appeal would be conceded if the qualification certificate had been produced.

15.	The tribunal heard the evidence of Ms Cathrine Clarke.

Tribunal’s conclusions with reasons

16.	The provisions of Section 58 of the Act provides that the Respondent must refuse an application for registration unless it is satisfied about various matters, including the requirements of section 64.

17.	Section 64(1)(b) provides that an applicant for registration as a social worker who has undergone training in relevant social work elsewhere than in England satisfies the requirements of the section if that training is recognized by the Respondent as being of a standard sufficient for registration or not being to that standard that the applicant has undergone such additional training as the Respondents may require.  

18.	The appellant, despite ample opportunities to do so, both prior and during the appeal, has failed to produce evidence that he has satisfactorily completed training equivalent to the DipSW in Norway or elsewhere.  In those circumstances, the decision to refuse his registration was correct and should be upheld.

19.	This is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal.

Order

Appeal dismissed.

Meleri Tudur 
(Nominated Chairman)
Brian Cairns
Michele Tynan
25 April 2007