Mr Seedy Saidykhan
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
During the course of your employment as a Social Worker at Buckinghamshire County Council between October 2013 and 29 August
1. Prior to submitting Client A’s Mental Capacity Assessment on 10 October 2014 and/or 13 October 2014, did not conduct a review of Client A’s capacity to make a decision about extra respite care.
2. On 10 October 2014 and/or 13 October 2014, submitted a Mental Capacity Assessment for Client A which:
a) was an amended version of a Mental Capacity Assessment for Client A which had been completed in 2011 by another worker;
b) did not assess Client A’s capacity to contribute to consideration of additional respite care.
3. Between 23 September 2014 and 09 October 2014, did not conduct a Mental Capacity Assessment for Client B prior to making a best interest decision regarding Client B’s ability to manage a payment of a direct grant.
4. On 9 October 2014 during a Mental Capacity Assessment for Client C:
a) did not allow Client C’s parents to Support Client C at the meeting;
5. The matters described in particular 1 and/or 2a are dishonest.
6. The matters set out in paragraph 1 - 5 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
7. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Panel has been convened to undertake the review of a substantive suspension order.
2. The Registrant, Mr Seedy Saidykhan, has neither attended the hearing nor been represented at it.
3. The Panel first considered whether a valid notice of hearing had been sent to the Registrant. The Panel concluded that the letter dated 4 June 2018 satisfied this requirement.
4. The Panel then considered the application made by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the HCPC that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. Having considered the matter very carefully the Panel concluded that the hearing should proceed. The reasons for this decision were as follows:
• It was apparent from a File Note dated 18 June 2018, that in a telephone conversation with an HCPC Case Manager that day, the Registrant acknowledged that he was aware that the review had been scheduled to take place on 3 July 2018.
• Although the Registrant had indicated in an email sent on 14 June 2018, that he was minded to attend the review hearing, in the telephone conversation on 18 June 2018, he stated that he would not attend the review hearing if the Panel would not be reconsidering the allegation as he had nothing to say in relation to the Order.
• For these reasons the Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing.
• The Registrant has not requested an adjournment.
• The current period of suspension expires on 2 August 2018, and in order for jurisdiction to be maintained it is necessary that a review is undertaken before that date. There are no grounds on which the Panel could conclude that the Registrant would be likely to attend a hearing on another occasion before that date, and in any event it is doubtful whether the required notice for a hearing before that date could now be given.
• The Registrant had had an opportunity to make submissions in writing to the Panel, and the Panel had the information to which reference will be made below.
• For these reasons the Panel concluded that the clear public interest in the hearing proceeding outweighed the absence of the Registrant.
5. The Registrant is a Social Worker. At the time relevant to the allegations he was employed by Buckinghamshire County Council as a Band 5 Care Manager in the Learning Disability Team (“the Team”). When the Registrant joined the Team he was a newly qualified Social Worker in the Assessed and Supported Year of Employment programme (“ASYE”). He was responsible for working with adults who had learning difficulties, and in the course of his duties he would meet service users and their families, conduct assessments and subsequent follow-up. His work included involvement in such matters as funding agreements, Mental Capacity Assessments and the provision of respite services.
6. The HCPC’s allegations against the Registrant were determined at a substantive hearing held between 3 and 5 July 2017. The factual particulars alleged against the Registrant as set out at the head of this document are self explanatory. The Panel found all of the facts alleged, including the contention that particulars 1 and 2(a) were dishonest amounted to misconduct.
7. The substantive hearing panel decided that the proved facts were sufficiently serious to be categorised as misconduct. It also found that the misconduct was impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise. The finding of impairment of fitness to practise was required not only because of the risk of repetition of misconduct but also because the public would expect such a finding in a case involving dishonesty.
8. When the substantive hearing panel turned to consider the issue of sanction it identified a number of aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors included the Registrant’s newly qualified status, the fact that he had not been given by his employer all the support that had been recommended and that the misconduct had occurred over a short period of time. That panel rejected taking no action or imposing a caution order. It also considered that conditions of practice would not be appropriate. In deciding that the sanction to be imposed was a suspension order, the panel determined that it should be for a period of 12 months, as that would be sufficient time for the Registrant to reflect on the panel’s findings, develop insight and formulate a plan for remediation. The substantive hearing panel’s determination concluded with paragraph 67 in the following terms, “The panel considered that a reviewing panel may be assisted by a reflective piece, character references, details of relevant training/education b the Registrant and, if working, references/testimonials related to any paid or voluntary work undertaken since the imposition of the Suspension Order.” When the bundle of papers for the present review hearing was served on the Registrant by both post and email on 14 June 2018 his attention was drawn to the terms of paragraph 67 and reminded him that he could make any submission he liked to the Panel.
9. At the present review hearing the Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and that a sanction remains necessary. The submission of the Presenting Officer was that a suspension order would serve no useful purpose and for that reason a striking-off is the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
10. The Registrant has not provided any of the information suggested by the substantive hearing panel to which reference has already been made. The Panel was, however, provided with copies of two documents which reflected his views. One was an email sent by the Registrant to the HCPC on 14 June 2018. That email did not include any information from which the Panel could conclude that the Registrant was accepting responsibility for his actions and seeking to remedy them. The other document was the File Note dated 18 June 2018, to which reference has already been made. In the telephone conversation on that day the Registrant stated that he did not wish to practise in the future and that whatever the Panel decided, it would have no impact on him as he had his own business. In the early part of that conversation he said that he would like to attend the present hearing to explain that he did nothing wrong and that the allegation against him was not correct. When he was properly advised that the present reviewing Panel would not be able to go behind the decision made in July 2017, he stated that he would not attend as he had nothing further to say in relation to the current order.
11. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has approached the decision to be taken in respect of this review applying the following principles:
• It is required to accept the findings made by the substantive hearing panel in relation to the allegation as settled. It is not appropriate to revisit the findings of fact made by that panel.
• Taking the substantive hearing panel’s finding as the starting point, and considering all that has and has not occurred in the period since that decision was made, the present Panel is required first to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired.
• If there is no on-going impairment of fitness to practise, then there should be no further sanction imposed upon the expiry of the present order.
• If, however, the conclusion of the Panel is that there is on-going impairment of fitness to practise, then the Panel is required to consider whether a further sanction is required. If it is, then ordinary sanction considerations apply. In particular, a sanction must not be imposed with the intention of punishing the Registrant. Rather, a sanction must be the least restrictive outcome consistent with the need to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. The sanction range available to the Panel will be dictated by the powers that were available to the panel that imposed the sanction being reviewed.
12. The conclusion of the Panel was that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. The reasons for this decision are:
• Despite the clear recommendations of the substantive hearing panel, there has been no evidence provided by the Registrant to the Panel from which it could conclude that the Registrant has either taken any steps to address the findings made against him in July 2017, or that he has any future intention of doing so.
• Rather, what the Registrant has stated suggests that he has continued to deny culpability for the matters included in the allegations.
• The absence of insight and remedial action resulted in the Panel finding that the risk of repetition of misconduct is as great at the present time as it was in July 2017. Were he to repeat such behaviour, service users would be put at risk of harm.
• In these circumstances the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired from the point of view of the personal component. Furthermore, a finding of impairment of fitness to practise is also required to satisfy the wider public interest to maintain public confidence and so that proper professional standards are declared and upheld.
13. Applying the Panel’s findings in relation to impairment of fitness to practise to the consideration of sanction, the Panel concluded that it would not be appropriate to take no further action and that a caution order would not sufficiently protect the public. A conditions of practice order would not be appropriate because it would not be possible to formulate conditions that would meet the finding of dishonesty and also because the Registrant has expressed the clear intention of not returning to work as a Social Worker.
14. The Panel next considered whether a further suspension order should be imposed. A suspension order would protect the public for the duration of the order. However, in circumstances where the Registrant has stated that he does not wish to practise as a Social Worker and does not appear to be prepared to address the shortcomings identified by the substantive hearing panel, a suspension order would achieve nothing positive as the Registrant’s impairment of fitness to practise would be as great at the end of any period of suspension as it is at the present time. This finding has resulted in the Panel concluding that the appropriate order at the present time is a striking off order. The Panel is satisfied that in circumstances where there is an inability or unwillingness on the part of the Registrant to address the serious matters found against him in July 2017 a striking off order is a proportionate response.
With effect from the expiry of the present period of suspension, namely with effect from 2 August 2018, the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Seedy Saidykhan from the Register.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Mr Seedy Saidykhan
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|03/07/2018||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|
|03/07/2017||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|