The hearing process is not a quick one, so if you find yourself out of work after an allegation you can expect to be in career limbo for years, not weeks.
In criminal cases, the process from being charged to going to trial can vary from months to around two years, depending on the complexity of the case.
An SSSC investigation seems more likely to veer towards that ceiling, though it appears there are many instances where two years come and go.
From the worker's point of view, as in my position, I was essentially locked out of my chosen career for the last three years of my working life. That presents a major problem if you are having to find the money to pay for legal representation, never mind pay your daily bills.
It might also account for why a good number of workers accept the initial decision of the SSSC and avoid going to hearing – it is quicker, so financially less of an impact, and the ‘sentencing’ might be less severe.
Now, being the Devil’s Advocate here, that’s actually not good for the profession. As you will see from the complaint and Lorraine Gray’s response, I refused to have sanctions put on my registration after the initial investigation following being referred.
The ensuing 18 months apparently allowed a much “deeper clean” of my career, with minutes before the hearing began the SSSC was still content to apply those sanctions.
Between walking down the corridor to the hearing room and uttering, I’d reckon, between 300-400 words over the next few hours, I had rocketed from ‘sanctionable’ to a danger to the public, a disgrace to my profession, a liar and a fantasist; someone who would be willing to watch a child die rather than use the petty cash box to buy a £25 life-saving aid, someone who could kill numerous sick children over a period of years; someone whose name would not be out of place alongside a mass murderer.
If these extra few hours on my investigation produced these revelations, then you must surely argue the case that the chances are a lot of our colleagues have got off lightly and the SSSC has returned a veritable army of potential killers back into the workplace.
I’m actually more cynical. I think going to hearing just makes a lot more work for a resource-strapped SSSC, and demands to have a full investigation into allegations that affect your professional standing or can even end your career are not embraced by the governing body, but resented.
The response to this complaint, from SSSC chief executive Lorraine Gray, is given at the end.
Complaint 4: The length of time it has taken to conclude the process
I was not aware that the investigation and hearing process would take in excess of 18 months to complete. As my FOI requests demonstrate, with an average investigation taking months or years to complete I would argue that very few workers could afford legal support for this length of time.
Furthermore, if workers have been placed under conditions or restrictions they may, as in my case, find themselves unable to work, which means they are further disadvantaged in being unable to afford legal representation.
This may force workers into accepting the conditions of the SSSC without a fair hearing due to financial constraints.
This I empathise with completely. When the allegations were first made against me, the SSSC first imposed conditions on my registration with my agreement, as I believed I was entering a fair and balanced process which I was told would take around nine months. I lost a job because of this, and certainly could not have found another in statutory child care because of the case holder’s use of the word ‘supervision’ which he clearly did not understand in the social work context. The conditions were subsequently removed in July 2017, allowing me to take on agency work. New conditions were then proposed which made agency work (my last chance of employment in social work) impossible and I decided I had no choice but to go to a hearing.
I had to ask about the progress of my case on several occasions; on one of these I had been asked to provide information by July 24 but heard nothing so emailed, and in September was informed that the case holder had been on holiday on that date, then broke his wrist so there had been no progress. In the interim I had not been informed, nor the case passed on to someone else. This clearly demonstrates the contempt with which SSSC regards the Public Services Ombudsman’s recommendation that it follows its own procedures which state that staff need to keep registrants informed of progress and also to plan communication when periods of inactivity are likely (Decision Reports 201508066 and 201507957 August 2016).
Response from Lorraine Gray, chief executive SSSC
On 19 December 2017 you emailed us and raised concerns about the length of time the investigation had taken. We responded to this by letter dated 22 December 2017 and provided information on how to take this particular complaint further.
The case was referred to us in October 2016. By December 2017 the investigation had concluded and you had been offered a sanction. You did not agree with the sanction offered and exercised your right to have the case heard by a Fitness to Practise Panel. The time it takes to hold a hearing is based on timescales within the Fitness to Practise Rules which allow for evidence to be exchanged and to provide the parties adequate time to prepare a case. In addition to this, a hearing date will depend on the availability of Panel members. The Panel convened in May 2018 and adjourned to July 2018.
I do acknowledge that Mr Miller had a short period of unforeseen sickness leave. His return to work also coincided with some other hearing commitments. This meant some aspects moved slower than others. I am not satisfied having someone else carry out Mr Miller’s duties during this period would have led to the case concluding quicker. The reason being that any new person allocated the file would time to familiarise themselves with the file. Had Mr Miller’s sickness absence been more long term then this option would have been considered.
I am unable to find evidence that the case was unreasonably delayed. I am satisfied the case was managed appropriately within our available resources.
Picture: Valentinsimon0
No comments:
Post a Comment