Skip to main content

Appeals

Workers can appeal decisions made by SSSC officers or a Fitness to Practise Panel.

Appeals are made by an application to the Sheriff Court. This should be done within 14 days of the decision being sent to the worker. The process used is called a Summary Application. A hearing normally takes place and the Sheriff then makes a decision.

You can see some of the appeal decisions here. The main grounds of appeal are the reasons why the appeal was made. We have summarised them.

Have feedback?

Sharing your experience in our quick anonymous survey will help us improve.

Complete survey

Date of appeal decision Type of decision appealed Main grounds of appeal Outcome Download decision
March 2020 TSO
  • Temporary Conditions Orders require the compliance of the worker and not the employer and can be imposed even where there is no employer.
 Refused Download
May 2018 Registration
  • Denied a fair hearing.
  • The Panel should not have admitted the written statements of witness who were not giving oral evidence.
  • Undue weight was placed on those statements.
  • Insufficient weight was placed on the pursuer's explanation.
 Refused Download
May 2018 Removal order
  • Panel should not have allowed opinion evidence from 2 senior social workers.
  • Breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as removal was disproportionate.
  • Excessive delay of 31 months between referral and hearing.
  • Failure to ensure a fair hearing and breach of Article 6 as the hearing lasted 10 days over and above the 31 months.
 Refused Download
February 2018 TSO
  • The Panel had misdirected themselves on the question of delay.
  • The Panel failed to have regard to paragraph 12 of the Decisions Guidance.
  • The Panel failed to take into account whether there was evidence of repetition in terms of paragraph 12.2 of the Decision Guidelines.
 Upheld Download
September 2017 Removal order
  • The Panel failed to give due weight to the factors impacting AF.
  • The Panel failed to take account of the fact that the behaviour hadn't been towards service users and there had been no complaints about their work with service users.
  • Other registered workers had been guilty of assault and had been dealt with more leniently.
 Refused Download
July 2015 Registration
  • Delay on the part of the Respondents in dealing with the Appellant’s application for registration.
  • The interpretation of and findings in connection with, the no case to answer submission.
  • The Panel should have adjourned the hearing in order to obtain further information.
  • A medical adviser ought to have been present in the proceedings.
 Refused Download
August 2015 Removal order
  • SSSC erred in law by admitting hearsay evidence about a service user.
  • SSSC erred in law by admitting the transcripts of text messages and breached Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • By admitting the hearsay evidence AE was denied a fair hearing.
  • SSSC acted unreasonably in arriving at the decision to impose a removal order.
 Refused Download
July 2012 Removal order
  • The Panel failed to give adequate reasons for their findings in fact and findings on misconduct.
  • The sanction was excessive.
 Refused Download