by Anonymous, with additional reporting by Anastasia Koutsounia
I was recently involved in a fitness to practise (FTP) hearing as the representative of a social worker who was under investigation.
While practitioners should ideally have a legal representative, this is beyond most people’s means.
In light of that, any familiar face can take up that role, subject to permission obtained in advance from the regulator.
It was on that basis that I took part in a seven-day hearing, held remotely.
These are my observations and reflections on the process.
Financial impact
It took five years and three postponements for the hearing to take place.
During that time, the social worker I represented – let’s call them Alex – spent several months unemployed before taking on a series of short-term carer positions through a recruitment agency.
Unless an interim order is issued, preventing or restricting a person’s right to practise, a social worker under investigation can continue to work. However, that’s not always possible.
While Alex found a job in another local authority after their (I believe wrongful) dismissal and worked there for a time, they were ultimately let go when the employer learned of the pending investigation.
They spent the following years taking jobs with much lower pay, which greatly affected their self-esteem, confidence and mental wellbeing. Short-term ad hoc agency work meant a big drop in income and no job security or career prospects.
This in itself was stressful, combined with the anxiety of having the FTP hearing looming for several years.
It also meant that by the time they were found fit to practise, five years later, they had missed out on years of experience and opportunities. Were they to reintegrate into the sector, they’d have to start from entry-level positions.
Details become hazy
In May 2024, in a joint statement on FTP hearings delays, the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), the Social Workers Union and UNISON stated that “there is a point where delay becomes unreasonable and can interfere with fairness and justice”.
They deemed the average case length at the time, at just over two years, to be too long. While this remains the average for all cases, whether decided by a hearing or Social Work England’s case examiners, the average age of cases at the hearings stage between January and March 2025 was 185 weeks – over three years.
In Alex’s case, the long wait of five years meant that it was questionable whether those involved could remember significant details accurately enough for a fair conclusion to be reached.
Unsurprisingly, participants from both sides said, “I can’t remember”, in response to some questions.
Another practical issue was that, after so long, some key witnesses had moved on. Two agency workers who could have corroborated the social worker’s statements could not be traced. One senior manager had retired, while another had left the organisation.
An ‘adversarial’ process
As the joint statement from BASW, SWU and UNISON says: “It is a tenet of justice that there is in principle an ‘equality of arms’ where legal processes are involved, [but] this is not a concept that stretches to fitness to practise processes at Social Work England.”
This was particularly evident in the investigation I took part in, which I found to be legalistic and adversarial.
During the intense seven-day hearing, I sometimes felt as though we were in a criminal court, not a regulatory investigation.
The regulator’s legal representative put questions in an accusatory manner, speaking of intention and motives as though the social worker was guilty of major criminal acts and perjury.
It was inappropriate. Although Social Work England is a regulatory body, it does not have the same legal status, rights or responsibilities as a court of law.
Inappropriate use of case law
The case law and legal precedents quoted were poor analogies for a social work investigation.
I was particularly struck by the reference to the fifth report of the Shipman Inquiry as a test for impairment. The 2002-5 inquiry investigated the case of Harold Shipman, a doctor estimated to have killed more than 200 people over three decades.
In Alex’s case, it is regrettable that a person using social services received inadequate care on one occasion. But to reference the UK’s most prolific serial killer when assessing the damage caused is disproportionate.
The subliminal message it gave was unjustifiably damaging, psychologically and emotionally, to the social worker, who turned to me in tears and asked: “Does that mean I’m a criminal now?”
Similarly, to use Ivey v Genting Casinos, a case involving a professional poker player who defrauded a casino of millions of pounds, as a test for dishonesty is inappropriate.
As a regulator, Social Work England is not required to apply case law, as is mandated in judicial proceedings. The cases used are also often irrelevant in a social work context.
It would be more appropriate if analogies were taken from comparable social work scenarios or previous FTP cases.
Panel members could use their combined professional skills and experience – as they would in an interview, performance management or supervision meeting – to judge whether a social worker was honest, had integrity and could practise safely and ethically.
In a statement to Community Care, Social Work England said that its FTP hearings operated within a statutory framework, where case law was used to support its application and interpretation.
While the principles set out in case law may originate from other regulatory bodies or a criminal or civil context, the regulator maintained that they were applicable to its processes in relation to common issues, such as how to define impairment or the test for dishonesty.
It added: “This is not unique to Social Work England and case law is used in the same way by other professional regulatory tribunals as well as criminal and civil courts and administrative tribunals.”
Good people working in bad systems
I found it frustrating that good people have to work in bad systems.
The panel in this case, comprising a chair, a lay panel member and an experienced social worker, were good people. They were objective and thorough, and posed useful and insightful questions to the witnesses and Alex.
They had experience and integrity, but were required to follow a long-winded process that generated hundreds of documents.
The hearing was postponed three times over five years, and Alex had to submit the same documents, statements and forms each time. The final bundle equated to hundreds of pages.
The documents outlining the FTP process and the claims against the practitioner were also verbose and lacked clarity.
‘Mistakes will sometimes be made’
“We understand the challenges involved in social work and we recognise that mistakes will sometimes be made,” states Social Work England’s guidance for FTP processes.
However, the drawn-out, bureaucratic and adversarial procedures in place mean that any errors by a social worker – or allegations of misconduct – could be career-ending. While this is catastrophic on an individual level, it will also inevitably undermine the profession’s future in the long term.
Staff shortages will only increase if social workers believe one small mistake could cost them their job, livelihood, confidence and mental wellbeing.
It might improve matters if Social Work England streamlined the system. Clearer, shorter instructions and policy documents could help cut down on administrative time.
Social Work England should acknowledge that the likelihood of reaching a fair conclusion diminishes the longer a hearing is delayed. Some people will be genuinely unable to remember details accurately, while others will use it as an excuse to avoid answering.
More efficient triage would reduce the number of hearings required if cases that could or should be dealt with as internal issues are sent back for employers to resolve.
In this case, for the last five years, service users, the public and social work colleagues have been deprived of the contribution of an experienced and conscientious social worker. Something has to change.
A response from Social Work England
Philip Hallam, the executive director of regulation at Social Work England, said: “As the regulator, we have a responsibility to consider every fitness to practise concern raised about social workers in England. We consider concerns through a legal framework that is designed to protect the public, whilst being proportionate and fair. Every concern progresses through different decision making stages, which can vary in length depending on the complexity of the case.
“Only 1.6% of social workers on the register pass through any part of the fitness to practise process each year and only the most serious concerns reach the hearings stage. We provide everybody involved with support and guidance throughout the process, and before and during the hearing, so they understand the proceedings and can ask questions.”
In an accompanying statement, the regulator said that decision-makers (adjudicators) were independent and assisted by a legal adviser whose primary role was to ensure there was a fair hearing for all involved.
The process was designed to be transparent, it added, and was “necessarily formal as it ensures that all parties can present their cases and challenge the evidence being presented”.
“Everyone going through fitness to practise procedures has a named contact at Social Work England. We ask people who need additional support to talk to us so we can advise where best to find help. Our staff are trained to have the skills to recognise when someone might need additional support.”
Social Work England has been struggling with ongoing delays in completing FTP cases since its launch in 2019, with no improvement in timings recorded during 2024.
Acknowledging that, its executive director of regulation, Philip Hallam, called the delays “unacceptable for everyone involved”.
“We know that the delays we are facing in progressing cases to a final hearing are unacceptable for everyone involved. Over the course of this year, we will use additional funding to increase our capacity to progress cases through the fitness to practise process, including at the hearings stage,” he said.
“We are also identifying where appropriate further efficiencies and improvements can be made at all stages of fitness to practise. We are taking actions to improve timeliness in our triage, investigations and case examiner functions whilst maintaining decision making quality.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Oxfordshire County Council 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
The highs and lows of a children’s services’ transformation journey 
Embedding learning in social work teams through a multi-agency approach 
The family safeguarding approach: 5 years on 
Harnessing social work values to shape your career pathway 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Free CPD on Parkinson’s for health and social care staff 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
It took SWE England a full 12 months before it informed me of a complaint from a parent. I had challenged the parent regarding his refusal to have his child at home, reinforcing his duty as one having legal responsibility towards his child. This was supported by my then management. A further 20 months SWE investigation followed resulting in no evidence to substantiate the parental complaint and no further action. I was not limited in my practice throughout the period of the complaint and investigation. I chose to leave the profession
I’m not surprised though I am sorry to hear that reasonable challenge around rights Vs responsibilities took you to this place. I hope you’re well now.
I served on fitness to practice tribunals when the regulator was the HCPC. I felt that all the HCPC tribunals were conducted fairly and there was no intention to punish social workers or treat them like criminals. I never had a case that anywhere near as old as 3 years. When I heard about the procedures being proposed for the new regulator I feared that cost saving was the major motivation behind the new system and I decided that there was no way I would consider working for SWE in any capacity. My fears were validated by the appalling treatment if Rachel Meade, for whom SWE have yet to issue an apology. SWE’s salaries are meagre for a national body and the fact that they are not based in London ( where they would have access to Parliamentarians) or another major city such as Manchester or Birmingham speaks volumes about their status.
Is Philip Halam talking about SWE, or a magical place of make believe? A named practitioner and support to every registrant going through the most stressful time in their professional life? Oh, I see, ‘ support’ is actually just their website, which sounds alot less fancy in reality, and luckily my case of 15 months didn’t progess ( no case for me to answer) so I didn’t get a named practitioner. I didn’t get the actual allegations put to me until 12 months in to their ‘transparent’ and ‘fair’ system, but hey ho, it’s all behind me now.
There is life beyond FTP investigations and there is a way to recover from the trauma. But it takes resilience, lots and lots of therapy, a change of career, cycling, allotmenting, and ultimately refusing to believe individual practitioners should take the hit for a social care system and regulatory body that are both broken beyond repair.
Totally agree, this FTP system is an absolute disgrace and they should be ashamed of how the social workers are treated and yes I felt like a criminal also. I will NEVER get over it.
…..“Only 1.6% of social workers on the register pass through any part of the fitness to practise process each year and only the most serious concerns reach the hearings stage. We provide everybody involved with support and guidance throughout the process, and before and during the hearing, so they understand the proceedings and can ask questions.”……
—————————–
Whether its only 1.6% or majority 99.4%, of social workers who pass through any part of the FTP process, the SWE studies and detailed research published do show;
1 – Majority impacts are with ‘race’ issues and related demographic dimensions.
2 – All the Ftp stages has inherent biases. These include processes suggesting human and/or possible Artifical Intellgence decision making.
3 – The enormous pressure on all ground staff while regulatory bodies themselves challenged in maintaining own KPI standards.
My view is that any sw who is waiting over 2-3 years without any evidence produced, should be reviewed to this process.
Very alarming that this social worker did not tell their new employer about the ongoing FTP process. Shocking.
No, that was not quite clear in the article. The social worker got the job via an agency, and had been completely open with agency about their situation, and believed full info had been passed on to employer. SWE say they can support SWs by contacting employers to assure them that the prospect of an FTP need not prevent SW from working. This is crazy because a) just the fact that SWE gets in touch can make some LAs, understandably, cautious and not want to keep the SW until the FTP is resolved, and b) because while the SW’s FTP is still being questioned, how can SWE realistically give that assurance.
Why should she tell them, there is no reason to tell them
When I worked as a panel member for the GSCC there was a robust initial consideration of evidence base and proportionality. We had a good understanding of thresholds and dismissals of matters as developmental, malicious or systemic rather than disciplinary.
I believe that some of the cases I am hearing of with long delays and limited evidence might not have reached this stage under that previous regulator. Obviously I have not been party to the paperwork here but nevertheless, GSCC had strong and fair procedures. When we felt processes ran against natural justice, panel members were listened to and procedural changes progressed and made. For example on a range of health and LGBT issues.
I do hope that a more social work value based process can be achieved, with the help of BASW and SWU who have a strong grasp of what is needed and how to represent social workers and get fair practice to protect the public but also the professionals. I would welcome the chance to contribute.
Ah the good old days. £30 a year for mostly got for purpose support and processes and advocacy in government too!
Now we pay three times more for far far less
During the investigation of my practice as outlined above I consider that SWE were fishing for information to justify itself. As stated my then management were fully supportive of my refusal to take the said child “into care”. This is exactly what the parent wanted
I identified poor practice and used my right to whistleblow on a manager and two social workers. They had been draining funds out of a company. Blackmailing families and other members of staff, lying about children’s diagnosis to gain more funds. Ofsted shut them down. I then recieved notice from SWE which was allegations which are untrue and made out of spite. I argued for it to go back to triage stage due to the fact I had followed whistleblowing policy, but they had also not read the Ofsted report which states that these three people are not fit to practice and that I had been the only protective factor. It was clear there was no factual evidence showing what I had been accused of. 3 years on the three people I reported are still working as social workers. I have lost my mortgage and my career and I am still waiting for SWE to make a decision. I have had 2 investigators. I am aware that the 8 people who held factual evidence and could support me have either retired or moved to different LA’S. The company who ran the computer system once used which would have all the factual evidence has also since gone into liquidation. What was the point of me being honest? I could have accepted money to keep me quiet or walked away and never spoken up.There is no support. There is nothing. I have literally lost everything and there is no one to talk to. I feel like a criminal and I lost my absolute passion and career. My house. My family. It truly is a horrific and isolating system. I was told 3 months ago it was recommended for closure. Now to be told I have to wait an additional 15 weeks from June for two further independent invigilators to review my case? And for those wondering… no one will hire you if they are aware of a pending investigation. And if you do not tell anyone about it, SWE soon make contact and you loose yoir job within a week. Because I have had to live that shame. I
This is on a par with the Post Office scandal in my view
If you are a criminal you are deemed innocent until proven guilty. If you are a social worker you are deemed guilty until proven innocent. The stress placed upon social workers is at times unbelievable and unbearable which leads to good social workers leaving a profession that they worked hard to enter and to remain in just leave due to the unfairness of it all. If anything goes wrong it always leads to the finger being pointed at the social worker. Bearing in mind nine times out of ten they are following the advice and guidance of management.
Social workers are not taken seriously by other professions and the general public.
My petition in relation to this very matter was approved this week. It would be amazing if community care could publish this so that it reaches as many social workers as possible, the situation is dire and things must change !
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/724726
A much needed action – hope it gets lots of support, not just from social workers but from a wider public as well who must surely recognise that it’s a tough and under appreciated job
I have supported a colleague and was really disappointed to note that social worker was treated like a criminal. They were made to complete lot’s courses but these did not help because they were never considered. I found the system very long because it has taken 5 years to complete the case and this has had significant impact on the colleague with no positive outcome. The evidence that was referred to was very circumstantial but due to the lawyers SWE have what are the chances of someone without legal assistance? I also thought (this is my ) observation that minority groups are walking on eggshells considering the evidence I picked during the process. As a member of the minority group, I felt all the weight of doing this job because we have to prove more than everyone. I understand there are all other groups but I can only comment on the experience I have lived in as a social worker.
IMO, this regulator is overkill and as disorganised as CQC. My only interaction with SWE is payments I have to make to them. They don’t help me in any way. The second is when, 3 or 4 years after the facts, I was home delivered a big box with hundreds of documents. I thought my life one way or another was going to end. It was about the complaint of a daughter about me and the DASS for not allowing her to bully her rich old parents into getting access to their finances. They tried to give me rubbish, Ivexplained the situation in basic terms and never heard about them again. Disorganised, late on the issues, unecessarily scared the hell out of me. And now they want more of my money , sitting somewhere pretty while I fight the social woes on the frontline.
I had a friend who I attended a FTP final hearing.
The investigation started in Feb 2020 and the final hearing didn’t take place until August 2023.
During this time, she was free to practice and there were NO interim orders or suspensions in place.
My friend had been dishonest and admitted her dishonesty, but had provided a context around this.
However at the final hearing, she was struck off, there was no middle ground. I agree with the author that the case laws (Ivey v Genting Casinos) used by SWE are totally inappropriate and not applicable, it is very adversarial and the whole process is all about undermining social workers and belittling them.
If I look in a mirror and see a giraffe I saw in the zoo 5 years ago it doesn’t mean I’m a giraffe. Mr Hallam might think we are all reprobates needing to be lashed by his “decision making quality” but unfortunately for them all we see is decent if at times not quite the paragons we are meant to be social workers being ghouled upon by third rate bureaucrats. SWE can pretend all it is doing is maintaining public safety but they are not really achieving that are they? How are the public protected when SWE takes years to determine the competence of social workers? When it comes to accountability “confidentiality” becomes the rule so we’ll never really know will we? SWE see a group of workers who need to be controlled, we see petty minded incompetents who are incapable of humility, unable to apologise, forever pleading lack of cash, who are incapable of insight or self examination. Roll on another year and repeat and rinse. Still the fees are going up so that’s one positive for the ‘regulator’.
When I complained about a social workers fitness to practise SWE didn’t take my complaint seriously – after this social worker failed my elderly patentts who suffered abuse & financial exploitation
“ I felt I was like a criminal in Court” I left the profession before fitness to practice tribunals came in. But my experience of the system prior to that is that actually most alleged criminals get a fairer hearing than some Social Workers being judged by the occasional vindictive manager -in my 35 years in the profession I met quite a few of those-although most managers (I include myself) weren’t like that somehow senior management always allowed overpromoted bullies to thrive and prosper
My heart goes out to “Alex” it brought back surprisingly vivid memories of being interviewed(interrogated?) without being told what the allegations against me were. also later situations of having to wait months for a hearing, not being allowed to see the so-called evidence against me and not being able to confront my accusers. I could go on but my point is that in a court of law this would not be allowed and as most empathetic professionals have already gathered I feel very strongly still about the way I was treated. I will never forget the debilitating effect this had on my mental wellbeing, my self confidence,still going into work every day, having no control over the outcomes, no control over the process ,no input and the constant nagging worry that the career I loved ( and relied on to pay my mortgage and feed my family) could be ended
I was saddened to see the response from Social Work England, it is a textbook type of reply that usually means nothing will change/we don’t feel we’ve done anything wrong/it ain’t my fault anyway et cetera
The final thought, forgive me I’m still a social worker at heart, the cliche “feelings are facts” and if all the respondents feel the system is unfair then probably that’s because it is unfair so why is no one listening?
I have been waiting for SWE to restore me to the register when I accidently didn’t complete the process. I submitted my CPD and the fee but didn’t click a final box. I wasn’t aware until my manager told me in the beginning of Feb. I immediately applied for restoration but am still waiting. To make matters worse, my employers have taken me through a disciplinary process & dropped my wages to that of an unqualified social worker. All for a simple mistake, no one was harmed. No wonder there is a shortage of social workers
That’s awful and bloody ridiculous
Sorry you had to put up with that
Criminal court? Kangaroo Court more like.
Absolute shambles with people who know nothing about social work practice or values. It’s actually embarrassing 😳
Disgraceful takes so long. And pays be in union or basw as they will represent. SWE not fit for purpose
My name is Jim Wild. I’m the founder of the Centre for active and ethical learning. In 2018 a senior manager in children’s services reported me for harassment. Essentially, I was raising concerns about men who inhabited The looked after system and were a danger to children and young people. I had clear evidence of deceit, duplicity and cover-up. Yet the complaint made to my regulating body took seven years, I repeat, seven years to reach a conclusion. In that time I was unable to work or earn a living. I was well known i work, I edited publications. I wrote articles in social work journals yet I was quite simply criminal and kicked out of social work.
Philip Hallam gives away more than he seems to realise every time he makes a comment about how his organisation operates. I can tell him his staff do not offer support to social workers under any stage of the FtP process. What’s more history staff seem unable to respond to phone calls or emails on some of the very basic queries. I’m not alone in being told by his staff that they personally cannot deal with “your enquiry and a colleague will contact you” only for silence to follow. Mr Hallam might convince himself that if only his organisation had a bit more money, from tax payers and fee payers, than Pollyanna world would follow. We will believe that SWE is a competent organisation when we actually hear some critical self reflection and an actual apology for its incompetence. Mr Hallam and co might believe time obscures memory but if he and his staff cared to actually listen to social workers he’d know we do not forget what his organisation does to social workers and the disrepute he brings to our profession when his organisation bullies and harrasses social workers like Rachel Meade. We don’t believe him, we don’t buy his justifications and we aren’t about to have any confidence in his organisation any time soon. If less than 2% of social workers go through his process and it can take up to 5 years to conclude I suggest he has no reason to utter words like ” maintaining decision making quality”. Seeking to “improve” while “maintaining” is a curious use of definitions. It’s of course possible that not being a bureaucrat perhaps I’m missing the point.
I wondered if a reply purporting to be from SWE would pass the Turing test.
To pass the Turing test at least one human has to be part of the equation. A human imitation of a machine whirring repeat, repeat and repeat sounds no one believe are reality based against an actual machine programmed to imitate the same insanity is a losers all experiment. So no it wouldn’t pass the Turing test.
One has to consider, does not one make a Safeguarding alert against SWE-FTP on the basis of emotional/psychological abuse of referred professionals. Should it be mandatory that if cases are not dealt within a reasonable time frame ie. a year, that SWE/FTP be made to pay compensation claims for loss of current salaries, future salaries, emotional abuse, loss of property (homes) and loss of relationships?
It is not morally/ethically appropriate or be accepted that a time lapse to five years is to be endorsed on the basis of pseudo excuses, irrelevant of whatever they maybe. If you don’t have a resource that can deal with a problem, don’t go there in the first place.
The CJS can deal with cases more efficiently than SWE/FTP given the time scales and access to defence attorneys.
Employers who make inappropriate referrals to SWE should be held to account. Employers who are incharge of professionals do not have to be registered with appropriate bodies and can evade poor decision making in this instance. WHY?
One accepts no matter what regardless of the profession, there would also be some rotten apples and the recent cases with the Metropolitan Police Force has demonstrated this.
Efficacy occurs when you are able to replicate given time frames with resources, not make innocent individuals suffer!
The CCETSW, GSCC, HCPC and SWE have on think in common. Guess!
I’m going through FTP final hearing 7 years after CPS service manager sacked me wrongly…Ihave no representation…but that’s not stopping me the whole system is like a very poorly managed army ..Bad Generals sacrifice their troops..
I was a victim of DV exploitation and the appalling lack of good management. I have learned that when a little old lady with no training in law takes down a barrister …they really don’t like that.
Who does SWE regulate..is it just the cannon fodder..?
Managers who just tick b0xes with no real empathy or perception..I was good at my job
They picked on the wrong person…I’ve got pirate blood ..lol and They’ve ruined me I’m on DBS barred list till 2029…all because my ex punished me for leaving.There has been no training directed SWE and the Act on coercion came in almost a decade ago
FTP is really just a disposal system for those broken in the meat grinder once you’ve passed AYSE you’re on your own ..I was sacked For GMC overturned to health but still on the barred list..the public and the staff need protection from those running such a corrupt system …victim blaming incompetent narcissists…they seem to thrive.
Its private now under health. But I’m not shutting up…
I have faith and God is always good ..he’s my defender.Love to all who have suffered x
From day one of SWE becoming the Regulator BASW has sat on its Professional Expert Group and it has regular meetings with SWE to date. Begs the question what is BASW actually doing to stand up for social workers and ensure justice is served? The refreshments can’t be that boss that BASW continue to attend while being totally ineffectual and perhaps even ignored and may just be there as the token decoration for cover-ups. I always remember this when BASW, the self defined professional voice of social work, talks about values and ethics.
BASW is many things but a democratic organisation it is not. The leadership behaved appallingly over the vilification of Rachel Meade in my opinion and they have done nothing to redeem themselves since her exoneration by Tribunal. They have also been somewhat circumspect in their response to the ruling on sex based right too. Ideology over respecting law and reluctance to unequivocally support social workers eviscerated for exercising their free speech is neither ethical nor upholding justice. The only reason I remain a member is because of the informal contacts I have made with other social workers. Whether that is now good enough to justify being a paying member is foremost in my thoughts at this time. I say ignore the noise that BASW leadership are good at generating and dug down to where they actually stand and how they respond to the real issues us social workers experience daily.
The system is the problem not the mechanics of it. A campaign for SWs to defund the regulator by witholding fees would be the only route to the abolition that SWE deserves. I would propose a restorative process facillitated by experienced practising social workers trained in Open Dialogue or systemic group work.
Only issues of serios child or adult harm should be referred on for a further fitness to practise hearing
We have a social worker in our local authority who has been awaiting a fitness to practice hearing for about 4 years (this is their second one) and was finally suspended after much grumbling and dithering from senior managers who put service users at risk by allowing this person to continue to practice. This person is now suspended on full pay and is likely to continue to be so until the FTP hearing takes place, all at cost to the taxpayer!
I have documentation to prove the allegations against me were wrong but it got me absolutely nowhere. My union dropped me the day before my hearing led me to believe that were supporting me I was signed of sick from my GP the day the allegations were made, the police were in on it and I’ve not managed to get employment since. Wrote to three prime ministers…..gave up in the end tried to get legal advice then one solicitor said your union should have stopped the whole thing from day one because of your sick note…..The barrister involved in the hearing has tied you up in legal knots all because they had to to put the blame on me because the local authority that I worked for failed and made a big mistake obviously?!?!