Mr Peter John Dryden
Between 31 August 2008 and 9 March 2014, during the course of your employment as a Social Worker with Bournemouth Borough Council, you:
1) In relation to Service User A, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Conduct a risk assessment;
b) Discuss an issue of impulsive spending with a colleague;
c) Contact Service User A’s solicitor regarding the management of finances;
d) Complete safeguarding paperwork.
2) In relation to Service User B, did not complete a review assessment and care plan in a timely manner.
3) In relation to Service User C, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Conduct a risk assessment;
b) Complete a short review form;
c) Close the matter.
4) In relation to Service User D, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Contact Autism Wessex to consider a care plan review;
b) Close the safeguarding investigation.
5) In relation to Service User E, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Conduct an unannounced visit;
b) Chase a colleague for review paperwork;
c) Send a calendar invite to a colleague to book a visit with Service User E;
d) Complete case notes;
e) Arrange a strategy meeting.
6) In relation to Service User F, did not complete a risk assessment and care package review in a timely manner.
7) In relation to Service User G, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Contact the family and arrange an assessment;
b) Review the care package.
8) In relation to Service User K, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Complete a core assessment;
b) Complete a capacity assessment;
c) Make a referral to the community nurse;
d) not proved.
9) In relation to Service User L, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Confirm the hire of a vehicle for two dates;
b) Request paperwork from Langley House.
10) In relation to Service User M, did not do the following in a timely manner:
a) Complete an A1000 document;
b) Book a review of the care package.
11) Not proved.
12) Not proved.
13) The matters set out at paragraphs 1-12 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
14) By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Health and Care Professions Council (“HCPC”) was represented by Mr Aarish Pandya. The Registrant was not present or represented. The Panel was satisfied that notice of today’s hearing had been properly served on the Registrant in terms of Rule 3 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules. The Panel thereafter considered Mr Pandya’s application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel is aware that the discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the utmost care and caution. The Panel is aware that the Registrant has signed the Voluntary Removal Agreement and it is clear that he is aware of today’s hearing. The Panel has also taken account of the nature of the hearing and has concluded that there would be no prejudice caused to the Registrant by proceeding in his absence today. The Panel has therefore concluded that in all of these circumstances it is in the public interest to proceed with this hearing in the Registrant’s absence.
2. The Registrant is a registered Social Worker and was the subject of an allegation that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his misconduct and/or lack of competence as set out above. On 18 May 2016, a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee found the allegation was well founded, having found that the Registrant’s actions amounted to a lack of competence and imposed a Suspension Order for a period of one year.
3. The Registrant has now applied to be removed from the Register but cannot do so for as long as he is subject to fitness to practise proceedings in terms of Article 11(3) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 and Rule 12(3) of the Health and Care Professions Registration and Fees) Rules 2003. The HCPC now applies to withdraw the allegation on the basis that the Registrant wishes to be removed from the Register voluntarily. The Registrant has admitted the allegation in full and has undertaken not to practise as a Social Worker or use any title associated with that profession. The HCPC and the Registrant have concluded a Voluntary Agreement to take effect from 12 May 2017, subject to the Panel approving the HCPC’s application to withdraw the allegation and discontinue these proceedings.
4. Mr Pandya outlined the circumstances which led to the finding of impairment. He submitted that the HCPC was satisfied that the Registrant fully understood the effect of the Voluntary Removal Agreement and that granting the application would not compromise the protection of the public or have any detrimental effect on the wider public interest.
5. The Panel had sight of correspondence from the Registrant from which it is clear that he admits the allegation in full. He has advised that he has not practised as a Social Worker since November 2013 and that he had no intention of doing so ever again.
6. The Panel considered all of the information and representations by Mr Pandya on behalf of the HCPC and the representations of the Registrant. The Panel has applied its own judgement to the application to withdraw the allegation and to discontinue these proceedings. The Panel has also had regard to the HCPTS’s Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent and has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
7. The Panel noted that the HCPC is satisfied that it would be meeting its statutory objective of protecting the public if the Registrant was permitted to be removed from the Register on similar terms to those which would apply if he were subject to a striking off order under article 29(5) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001. The Panel noted from the documents that a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee had found that the allegation was well founded and the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has made a full admission of the allegation.
8. The Panel had before it a Voluntary Removal Agreement which had been agreed between the Health and Care Professions Council and the Registrant and signed and executed by the parties in terms of which the Registrant admitted the allegations which had been made against him and agreed that he will resign from the HCPC Register on the terms and conditions fully set out in that Agreement. A Declaration that there was no other matter of which the Registrant was aware which might give rise to any other allegation was also signed by the Registrant on 5 May 2017.
9. The Panel firstly considered whether there were any factors which would make it undesirable to allow the allegation to be concluded on the consensual basis set out in the Voluntary Removal Agreement. The Panel has concluded that, given the nature of the allegation, there are no such overriding public interest factors.
10. The Panel is aware that if the Registrant seeks to return to the HCPC Register at any time in the future, his application would be treated as if he had been struck off as a result of the allegation.
11. In all the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that both the public and the public interest would be adequately protected by the terms of the agreement reached between the Registrant and the HCPC in as much as the Registrant will henceforth be prevented from acting as a Social Worker and should he wish to apply to return to the Register, he will be treated as though he had been struck off. In addition the Panel is satisfied that this is an efficient method of disposing of this allegation in an appropriate and proportionate manner which is in the interests of the public, the HCPC and the Registrant and accordingly approves the Voluntary Removal Agreement to withdraw the allegation and discontinue these proceedings.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Mr Peter John Dryden
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|12/05/2017||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Voluntary Removal agreed|
|16/05/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|