Samufonda v GSCC, Court of Appeal, June 28, 2011, [2011] UKFTT 358 (HESC)

Resolution Date:June 28, 2011
Actores:Samufonda v GSCC

[2011] UKFTT 358 (HESC)





[2011] 1883 SW


Judge Nancy Hillier

Specialist member Brian Cairns

Specialist member Gill MacGregor

Hearing date 28 June 2011


  1. The Applicant appeals pursuant to section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against a decision of the General Social Care Council (GSCC) to remove his name from the Social Care Register (the register). The decision was notified to him by letter dated the 18 April 2011. The reason given by the GSCC for the removal was the Applicant's failure to renew his registration in that he failed to pay the necessary renewal fee and submit a renewal application form by 31 January 2011.


  2. The hearing was conducted by consent of both parties without their attendance. The Tribunal considered the bundle of 74 pages and the undated letter from the Applicant received by the Tribunal on 27 June 2011.

    Preliminary matters

  3. The panel considered whether it was appropriate to admit the evidence contained in the Applicant's letter received in Darlington the day before the hearing. This evidence was partly a repetition of the Applicant's position that he had not received the relevant documents but the letter contained additional evidence that the packs are bulky and that at a former address his neighbour used to accept them for him. Further, the letter stated that he had moved to his current address on 30 September 2010.

  4. By directions issued on 6 June 2011 Judge Hillier extended the time for filing supplementary evidence to 24 June from 13 June, at the request of the Applicant. The panel noted that the Applicant had copied the letter to the Respondent, however when the administration checked whether it had been received they were informed that it had not. The Respondent had therefore not had any opportunity to respond prior to the hearing.

  5. The panel considered the overriding objective and the application of a fair and just approach and concluded that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent by the admission of this evidence since it added to the chronology an important detail, namely the date of the Applicant's move.


  6. The Applicant has been a social worker since 1988. It has been a requirement for him to be registered since 2005, therefore it would appear that he successfully completed a formal re-registration in early 2008.

  7. On 30 September 2010 he moved to a new address. On 11 November the GSCC wrote to the Applicant at his new registered...

To continue reading