A social worker who paid an ex-partner for carrying out maintenance services at Birmingham City Council without declaring a conflict of interest has been struck off by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).
The team manager for a Care Leavers service authorised payments to an individual named on the council’s records as ‘Tony Francis’, without declaring that he was her former partner and the father of her child.
This led her to her dismissal from the council in 2012 on grounds of gross misconduct after concerns were raised the year before in a letter from an anonymous whistle-blower.
The social worker claimed that she had not made the connection between the individual, ‘Tony’ Francis she was authorising payments for, and her former partner who she had listed in contact information given to her son’s school as ‘Doulton’ Francis. She claimed she had known him as ‘Oli’, was no longer in contact with him and did not realise ‘Tony’ Francis was the same person.
However, the panel heard testimonies that the personal relationship was common knowledge in the team . A member of the social worker in question’s team who had known her for many years said she knew the father of her colleague’s child was called Tony and had met him at the child’s christening. The telephone number given to the child’s school was the same as that listed on the council’s payment records to ‘Tony’.
The panel said it “did not accept the registrant’s position that she did not know that ‘Tony’ Francis and her former partner were one and the same person.”
As well as authorising payments to her ex-partner, the social worker used a removal firm run by a staff member’s husband. It was widely known that that the individual running the removal firm was the staff member’s husband but the social worker maintained throughout the council’s investigations into her misuse of payments that she did not know of the connection between the man to whom she was authorising payments and a member of her team. The panel was later presented with an email exchange between another staff member and the social worker in which it was clear that she had known of their personal relationship.
The report on the hearing said: “in the panel’s view it is clear that the registrant’s actions were all focused on attempting to conceal the true situation and to distort the information gathered by the city council.
“She clearly acknowledges that she eventually realised that she should have been open and honest when interviewed about these matters and that her attempts at concealment had in fact exacerbated her position,” the panel said.
Throughout the investigation, the panel found, the social worker appeared to show no remorse and no insight into why her actions were not appropriate. That she failed to declare issues that might create conflicts of interest, influencing her judgment or practice, was dishonest, the panel found. There were no competence issues that might be addressed by a conditions of practice order.
Because the social worker’s misconduct involved premeditated dishonesty over a long period of time, and because she showed no insight or remorse, the panel has decided to strike her from the register.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
I don’t understand why she had to be struck off. Employing her ex partner without declaring it does not mean that she is a risk to the public. Clearly another case of overkill.
I cannot see why the social worker was struck off……her practice was not in default . And why is it that MPs can employ family members without redress… One law for the privalidged and another one for the workers!
She was dishonest, and it does not hurt to admit that she should have declared her conflict of interest and recused herself from hiring her ex. Somebody else could have bailed her out within her team. Overkill yes!!! You overkilled here.
Has anybody researched whether the HCPC is being measurably more punitive than the GSCC was, and what impact they have had on the quality of social work provision in the UK?
This is not about her practice or a ‘class war’, this is about dishonesty and trustworthyness managing a budget.
1 She employed people she had a personal relationship with using Birmingham City Council’s money.
2 She did not disclose this conflict of interest.
3 When challenged she tried to ‘cover up’ what she had done to the council investigators.
4 She finally told the ‘Fitness to practice’ hearing that she didn’t know that she was employing her colleagues husband – yet they had possession of emails which CLEARLY showed she not only knew that, but she knew she wasn’t telling the hearing the truth.
5 She showed no insight into understanding that what she had done was wrong.
6 She showed no remorse for her wrongdoing.
And you honestly don’t understand why she was struck off?
The public must feel unequivocal confidence in the profession’s capacity to manage the complex needs of vulnerable members of the community. This example only serves to degrade the image of our profession and the (now ex) worker does us all a huge disservice. The HCPC’s decision to remove her from the register should act as a guide to the conduct and practice of members of a number of other highy responsible professions.