In the First-tier Tribunal	

Between:		

LENIN TANDZUK AKUM 
Applicant
V

GENERAL SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL
          Respondent

[2010] 1812.SW

DECISION

Before: 
Ms Melanie Lewis, Tribunal Judge
Mr David Braybrook (Specialist member)
Mrs Carol Caporn   (Specialist member)

Heard on 19 November 2010 at Newbury County Court

Attendance and Representation 
Mr. Akum attended the hearing and represented himself. 

Ms. Stevens Counsel, represented the General Social Care Council (‘GSCC’).

Appeal

1.	 By an application dated 29 April 2009 Mr. Lenin Tandzuk Akum born on 14 April 1969 applied for registration as a social worker who had trained and qualified outside the United Kingdom. He claimed that he had a relevant qualification, a Bachelor (Hons) degree in Social Work, from Cameroon.
 
2.	On 29 April 2010 the Registration Committee refused his application.  The Appellant choose not to attend and give oral evidence. On 29 July 2010   Mr. Akum appealed under section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against that decision.  The Committee’s decision to refuse registration was based on:-

a.	 it not being satisfied that the appellant held a relevant qualification

b.	that it was in the public interest to refuse registration since there was sufficient uncertainty as to the Appellant’s:

i.	work and study history, 
ii.	his identification,
iii.	his immigration stratus in the United Kingdom 
iv.	his qualifications.  

The Law

3.	By virtue of section 56 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (“the Act”) the Respondent maintains a register of social workers and section 58 allows the Respondent to grant or refuse registration to individuals who apply to be on the Register.  The primary purpose of the Act, and therefore of the Tribunal, is to safeguard vulnerable members of the public.   To that end, section 54(2) of the Act states that the duties of the GSCC are to promote (a) high standards of conduct and practice among social care workers; and (b) high standards in their training.

4.	Section 58(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides that, if the Council is satisfied that the applicant is (a) of good character; (b) is physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in that part of the register to which his or her application relates; and (c) satisfies certain conditions, including “any requirements as to conduct and competence” which the Council may by Rules impose, it shall grant the application for registration, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit.  In any other case, the Council shall refuse the application.

5.	Section 64(1)(b)(i) of the Act states that Applicant’s who have undergone social work training in relevant social work elsewhere than in England can be registered by the Council but only where the training is recognised as being of sufficient standard for registration.  A qualification from Cameroon is not recognised. Section 64 (1) (b) (ii)  allows an alternative route to registration where the  applicant has undergone in England or elsewhere such additional training as the Council may require. 

6.	Applications for inclusion on the Social Care Register are governed by The General Social Care Council (Registration of Social Workers) Rules 2008 (“the 2008 Rules”).  Rule 4(3)(a) of the 2008 Rules requires an applicant for registration as a social worker who is a social worker to provide in connection with his  application, evidence as to his good character, good conduct, physical and mental fitness to practise as a social worker  and competence
7.	Rule 4(3) (b) (i)-(vi) requires the Applicant to provide evidence as to his qualification.   
8.	Rule 20(16) sets out the powers of The Registration Committee, which are either to grant or to refuse the application for registration or impose conditions on the registration for a specified period.   In exercising its powers the committee has a duty under Rule 20(19) to act in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
9.	When submitting his application the Appellant agreed to comply with the Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers, which the GSCC must take into account when making decisions on what social workers must comply with.  They include being honest, communicating in a straightforward way, not behaving  in a way in  work or outside work that would call into question their suitability to work in social care services  to work in a lawful, safe and effective way.  

10.	Section 68 of the Act provides that an appeal against a relevant decision of the Respondents lies to the Tribunal.   On appeal, the Tribunal has power to confirm the decision of the Respondent or to direct that it shall not have effect.  It also has power to vary, remove or impose any condition upon the Applicant’s registration as it sees fit.   This confers a wide jurisdiction and permits this tribunal either to reconsider afresh matters previously adjudicated upon by the Respondents or, in appropriate cases, to restrict itself simply to reviewing the original decision, in the usual way, that is, by means of a re-hearing.

The burden and standard of proof

11.	The onus is on the Applicant to prove his  competence and good character (Jones v Commission for Social Care Inspection [2004] EWCA Civ 1713; and CR -v- General Social Care Council [2006] 0626. SW and it is his responsibility to demonstrate that he is suitable for registration.   The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities.

The background facts to the case

12.	The Appellant is a national of Cameroon, who probably first entered the United Kingdom in 2001 as a visitor. The issues that arise in this case, do so as the Respondent’s investigations far from clarifying the appellant’s education/work history before and after his arrival in the United Kingdom, raised a number of further questions, including the Appellant’s immigration status.    

13.  The GSCC first became aware of the Appellant on 12 March 2007, when it received his application dated 10 November 2007 for registration as a student on a Masters of Social Work course at Kingston University. The Appellant registered as a national of Belgium.   As an EU citizen he was treated as a home student paying home student fees, so less than those paid by an overseas student.  In that application the Appellant made no mention of having a social work qualification from the Cameroon. 

14.	The Appellant confirmed to us that he is not and never has been a national of Belgium, despite being in possession of a Belgium passport bearing his name and date of birth.  

15.	 He further confirmed that the facts recorded in an email dated 8 December 2009 from the Course Director at Kingston University to the GSCC were correct. The Appellant was ultimately not awarded a Masters Degree, but was awarded a Post Graduate Certificate in Applied Social Care Studies, when he failed relevant modules after being allowed to re sit some of them.   An allegation of plagiarism was not upheld but an academic panel recommended re-education.  A placement had been terminated on the recommendation of the Practice Assessment Panel due to irreconcilable differences between the Practice Teacher and the Appellant.  The only point that the Appellant took issue with was that he had been unwell, but in the event no Occupational Health Assessment was ever carried out as his failure in re-sits, meant that he  could not be re-admitted to the course.  

The Evidence 

16.	In determining his appeal we had regard to all the documents in the Tribunal bundle consisting of:-

A	Order of the First Tier Tribunal 29 September 2010 directing the Appellant to serve any additional evidence by 5 pm on 14 October 2010.

B	Appellant’s application.

C	GSCC response

(i)	Notice of Decision and Registration Committee 29 April 2010.
(ii)	Copy hearing bundle 25 March 2010.
(iii)	Appellant’s (table documents) – hearing bundle 25 March 2010.
(iv)	General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2008.

15.	During the hearing, in response to questions from the panel about his immigration status, the Appellant produced a letter from Joves Solicitors dated 27 August 2010 to the UK Border Agency.  

16.	The Appellant’s work and study history and the discrepancies between the information given in the student application and in his second Internationally Qualified Social Worker application is best understood by being set out in tabular form. 

17.	In his student application the record stated as follows:-

Date	Position	
09.09.2005 – 31.08.2006	Teacher of English, Langleywood School, Slough	
04.04.2004 – 31.08.2005	Teacher of RE, All Hallows School, Farnham	
21.05.2003 – 04.04.2004 	Supply Teacher, Teaching Personnel, Welyn	
05.01.1998 – 20.12.2001	Teacher of English, Brazil	
09.09.97 – 02.02.1998	Teacher of Literature, Cameroon	
09.09.1994 – 06.06.1996	Teacher training, Cameroon 	
04.09.1996	Commencement of Master of Social Work Course, Kingston University: home student as EU national – Belgium	

18.	In his Internationally Qualified Social Worker application the Appellant recorded the following facts:-

Date	Position	
05.09.1994 – 28.06.1997	Bachelor in Social Work, Institut du Travail Social, Yaounde, Cameroon	
09.1997 – 12.2001	Social Care Education and Prison Service, Cameroon	
01.2002 – 03.2003	Care and Support Worker, J & K Agency	
04.2003 – 08.2005	Teacher, All Hallows Catholic School, Farnham	
05.2006 – 04.2009	Teacher, In Front Supply Agency, English & RE	
09.2005 – 04.2009	Carer and Support Worker, J & K Agency	

19.	As stated the GSCC has power to make enquiries and the following additional clarification was offered by the Appellant on 24 November 2009 in relation to the Internationally Qualified Social Worker application:- 

Date	Position	
09.1997 – 12.1998	Teacher and Education Officer, Department of Children Welfare, Cameroon	
01.2000 – 11.2000	Exchange programme, Brazil	
04.1999 – 12.2001	Social Worker, Prisons Bureau, Institute for Young Offenders, Cameroon	

The Respondent’s case

20.	The response highlighted that on the information provided by the Appellant, there were a number of discrepancies. The appellant had been asked to give dates “accurate to the nearest month for the last 10 years, the period prior to that in years only”, but the dates and employment followed did not match up at all.  For example on the dates that he would be studying for his social work qualification, he was undertaking his teacher training. There was a further discrepancy that he was teaching English in Brazil whilst supposedly undertaking social work training in Cameroon. He was apparently working via J & K Recruitment and via In Front Supply at a time when he was a full time student at Kingston University.  Enquiries of All Hallows School confirmed that the Appellant in fact worked there between September 2004 and May 2005, but the person who wrote the character reference who was a friend from the same area of Cameroon had no authority to do so using the school’s headed note paper. Similarly, Langleywood School confirmed that he had only worked there for five months between January and May 2006. 

21.	With regard to the issue of identification, the appellant had enrolled at Kingston University in September 2009 using a Belgian passport. If he was not an EU citizen he had gained an unfair advantage through deception of which reduced fess was a component.  The Appellant had also provided a Belgian passport to J & K Recruitment. The Appellant had additionally produced another Cameroonian passport in his name giving a date of birth of 14 April 1969.   Additionally, he produced another passport in the name Emmanuel Achatebe Akum with a date of birth 3 November 1976 which was on file at J & K Recruitment. Only during the hearing did he say that was his brother, who is now living in Germany. 

22.	The GSCC were concerned that the Cameroonian passport submitted held no extant leave for the United Kingdom, the last leave having expired in April 2009. Further, enquiries at both All Hallows School and Langleywood School elicited that he had left both employments suddenly because of immigration issues. Further, enquiries to the UK Border Agency confirmed that the Appellant was an ‘overstayer’.  

The Appellant’s case 

23.	The Appellant explained that discrepancies in the information provided in the two applications, by lack of recall but also due to differing systems in his home country which might not be understood by the GSCC. Also his work as an agency worker was included in his school history dates, but the school had only provided the dates of a definite short term contract. There was no evidence from the Agencies to support that position. He had deliberately not relied on his past social work experience when he made his student application as he felt that it was important to assimilate into the culture of the United Kingdom first.  He said, however, that social work and his desire to work in the area, was a passion and had been since he lived in Cameroon.  

24.	He took strong issue with any questions being raised about his integrity and relied on two references from his church. However, the pastors who wrote the reference could only speak in general terms and did not display any knowledge of the issues in the case.  He had quoted his SCR registration number 1146947 on both applications. Therefore he had assumed that it would be known on his second application that he had applied for the student course at Kingston.

25.	The Appellant admitted that he had a conviction for drink driving in 2003 but that had been made known to Kingston University. It is not the Respondent’s case that conviction is a reason for refusal but it is part of the background facts. 

26.	The Appellant took issue with where the burden of proof lay in relation to proving that he had a social work qualification from Cameroon. He had provided phone numbers. The form requested information about email addresses or websites but Cameroon was not sufficiently advanced for the university to be able to provide these.

27.	 The Appellant stated that he had done a BA in Social Work alongside a teaching qualification from Cameroon. In oral evidence the appellant confirmed that he had not taken any further steps to elicit confirmation from the university. He stated for the first time that he first undertaken and gained a degree in English, so was a student from about aged 21 to 26 years.  

28.	The Appellant’s view was that if, as claimed the Home Office wished to speak to him they knew where he lived.  He clarified that he had only instructed his solicitor recently as he had not had the funds to pay before. The application dated 27 August 2010 is for leave for the appellant, his wife and now two children to remain outside the Immigration Rules. We noted a reference to his having entered as a visitor in 2001 but subsequently changing to work permit employment as a teacher.  Additionally it was claimed that the appellant and his family should be allowed to stay under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:  the right to respect for family and private life.

The Hearing

29.	At his request we asked the Appellant a number of questions by way of clarification, to assist him in putting his case. Essentially he made many of the points already set out in his written response. 

30.	We spent time clarifying why the Appellant had recorded two different sets of academic and work histories in the two applications. His response was to repeat the explanation that he wished to gain experience of working in the United Kingdom and an understanding of the culture here before seeking to be enrolled as a social worker. 

31.	The Appellant admitted that he was not a Belgian national. He had however enrolled at Kingston University as a national of an EU country. The Appellant stated that he knew he was in a difficult situation, so had sought help in relation to obtaining the passport. This raised the possibility of not just obtaining a passport to which he was not entitled but using it to obtain enrolment and the advantage of being a home student. We therefore felt it appropriate to issue a warning against self-incrimination, so that he understood that he was potentially admitting conduct that could be the subject of a criminal charge. The appellant choose not to further elaborate on how the Belgian passport came into his hands.

Conclusion and Reasons

32.	In determining this appeal we have had regard to all the documents, the written submissions and responses, oral evidence and closing submissions of the parties.

33.	We did not find the Appellant a persuasive or reliable witness. The GSCC Code of Conduct and the demands of practice as a social worker, require that individuals can give a transparent and open account of themselves. Despite being put on notice of concerns that the GSCC had, it was striking that the Appellant has responded by reflecting on the practice and conclusions drawn by the GSCC rather than putting forward a straightforward account of his qualifications, work history and immigration status. In relation to all three it was just a matter of setting out a clear chronology and attaching, where available, the relevant documentation to confirm the dates given. Where the documentation was not available, it is reasonable to have expected the Appellant to give an explanation.  

34.	The GSCC made extensive enquires in this case. The Appellant was put on notice of what the concerns were and despite an opportunity to do so has not addressed them in any meaningful way, other than to assert his good character. The relevant forms make it clear that he was expected to be accurate.  This appeal was the first time that the Appellant has had to directly answer questions about his history. Far from providing any explanations it produced answers that raised the issues in the case to a higher level of concern. 

35.	The Appellant must first prove that he has a relevant qualification. He has produced a degree certificate which is translated as a ‘Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work’ dated 9 August 1997 from the Ministry of Social Work Cameroon.  He also produced a transcript, but this all relates to Social Work modules, with no mention of the teaching modules he claims that he took.    It is striking that the Appellant had taken no steps himself; to gain further information from the university he attended to verify the qualification.  He put forward no reasons why he could not do so, other than putting the burden back to the GSCC to make enquiries.  Further, there was no mention of the qualification when the Appellant had previously applied for the student registration and where his work history all related to teaching.  The accounts of his work history set out in support of his two applications to the GSCC do not match up and the discrepancies are major ones, for which he has provided no credible explanation. 

36.  We go on to consider the other ground for refusal, namely that registration is not in the public interest, which have a bearing on our overall assessment of the Appellant’s credibility. 

37.	The issue of identification is key to social workers who work in positions of authority with vulnerable individuals.  The Appellant admitted that he is not a Belgian national. Nevertheless, he provided a Belgian passport to J & K Recruitment whom he accepts he worked for. Further, he relied upon a Belgian passport to enrol as a student at Kingston University in September 2009. In our mind, this raises very real questions about the Appellant’s ‘probity, transparency and adherence to the law,’ which it will be for others to investigate.  In his written submissions the Appellant stated that ‘when you apply for a job as an immigrant and there are clauses, are you an EU or United Kingdom national, sometimes you say yes not because you want to spill blood or create any anarchy but just to eliminate that barrier and prove your worth’. The Appellant’s oral answers strongly suggested to us that he was prepared to take any steps, even if they did not comply with the law to achieve what he wished to happen. 

38.	The issue of the Appellant’s current immigration status was raised by the Respondent.  The UK Border Agency confirmed that the Appellant has no current leave in the United Kingdom. The account set out in the letter from the appellant’s solicitor’s dated as recently as 27 August 2010 does not suggest otherwise.  We note that the GSCC referred all documents to the UK Border Agency when they were informed that the Appellant was an ‘overstayer’. 

39.	The GSCC invested considerable resources in investigating this case. The Response and the original document put before the registration Committee, raise a number of concerns about the discrepancies in the Appellant’s various accounts. All are supported by evidence which has remained unchallenged in any material way. 

40.  For all these reasons we conclude that the decision of the Committee was correct, reasoned and inevitable.  We therefore uphold the Committee’s decision both on grounds of there being no satisfactory evidence of a relevant qualification and that it is in the public interest to do so. 

41.	We would comment that this case might have reached a conclusion sooner if the GSCC had interviewed the Appellant.  It was when he was pressed to explain discrepancies that he started to acknowledge the weakness of his position, albeit not showing any real insight into the personal standards required of a Social Worker.    

Decision: 

The Decision of the Registration Committee is upheld and the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Melanie Lewis 
First Tier Tribunal Judge.