Social Care Wales v Michelle Marie Drane [2026] UKFTT 1145 (HESC)

First-tier Tribunal Care StandardsThe Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008NCN: [2026] UKFTT 01145 (HESC)2026-01895.ISO-WHearing held on 6 August 2026 by video
Before
Ian Robertson (Judge)Dr R Flynn (Specialist Member)Dr E Stuart-Cole (Specialist Member)
Between
Social Care WalesApplicant-v-
Between
Michelle Marie DraneRespondentDECISIONDate 2026-08-10
[1]THE APPEAL[2]ATTENDANCE SCW was represented by Mr Delme Griffiths SCW’s only witness was Mr Ieuan Parry, Fitness to Practise Senior Officer of SCW. Ms Drane, The Respondent did not attend.[3]EVIDENCE We carefully considered all the written evidence submitted to the Tribunal in advance running to 287 pages. We did not consider it necessary or proportionate to hear oral evidence. The clarity of the evidence and the previous reasoned decisions being sufficient.[4]PROCEDURAL MATTERS The Respondent’s Non-Attendance As at previous hearings the Respondent failed to attend, failed to communicate with the SCW or the Tribunal and failed to provide any evidence. 5. Rule 27 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (“the Rules”) provides:
“If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal— (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing”
. We were able to confirm that the Respondent had been notified of the hearing. The Respondent was sent the notice of hearing on 28 July 2026. (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing”. We decided that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the Respondents absence as the Respondent had played no part in proceedings previously and had made no effort to engage on this occasion.

The Respondent’s Non-Attendance

[5]BACKGROUND AND KEY CHRONOLOGY The Respondent was registered with SCW on 1 March 2021.She was subsequently registered as a Domiciliary Care Worker on 20 April 2021. On 20 January 2023 the Respondent was arrested for fraud by false representation. The arrest was in relation to an allegation that the Respondent had financially abused a service user by using their bank card for personal use during her time working at IOS Health and Social Care. The Respondent was given bail conditions to not contact any witnesses directly or indirectly and to not attend any IOS Health and Social Care Homes. An Interim Orders Panel (“IOP”) of SCW met on 28 February 2023 and made the Order for a period of 18 months (to conclude on 27 August 2024). The IOP determined that the Order was both necessary and proportionate on the grounds that the order was: (a). necessary for the protection of the public; and (b). otherwise in the public interest. The Order was reviewed and reconfirmed by SCW IOPs on 28 February 2023, 21 August 2023, and 19 February 2024. These IOPs found that the Order should continue on the same basis. On 30 July 2024, the First Tier Tribunal, Care Standards decided to extend the Order until 27 August 2025 on grounds of protection of the public and public interest. The order was subsequently reviewed and confirmed by SCW IOPs on 21 October 2024 and 17 April 2025. These IOPs found that the order should continue on the same basis. On 07 July 2025, South Wales Police confirmed that the Respondent had been charged with three offences of fraud by abuse of position and the Respondent was due to appear at the Magistrates Court on 29 July 2025. On 12 August 2025 this Tribunal extended the suspension to 27 August 2026. It is the application to extend to 27 August 2027 that we are considering today.[6]LEGAL FRAMEWORK The Legislative Provisions he relevant legislative provisions are as follows; Sections 143 to 149 of the 2016 Act deal with the imposition of an interim Order Under section 144(4) of the 2016 Act there are two types of interim order, namely: (a). an interim suspension order, which is an order suspending the registered person's registration; (b). an interim conditional registration order, which is an order imposing conditions on the registered person's registration. Section 144(5) of the 2016 Act provides that an IOP may make an interim order only if it is satisfied that the[7]ANALYSIS (a). The criteria to be applied are the same as for the original interim order namely, the protection of the public, the public interest and the Respondent's own interests. The Tribunal can consider such matters as the gravity of the allegation, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons why the case has not been concluded and the prejudice to the Respondent if an interim order is continued. (b). The Panel must reach its decision as to whether to grant an extension based on the evidence, which should be examined with care. (c). It is not the function of the Panel to make findings of primary fact, nor is there any threshold test to be satisfied before the Tribunal can exercise its power of extension. (d). The evidence on the application will include evidence as to the opinion of SCW and the IOP as to the need for an interim order. Appropriate weight will be given to that. All that is required is that the Tribunal should give that opinion such weight as, in all the circumstances of the case, it thinks fit. 215 I188(e) The function of the Tribunal is to ascertain whether the allegations against the Respondent, rather than their truth or falsity, justify the prolongation of the extension.

Having considered these principles we agree the extension to 27 August 2027

[8]REASONS The decision of our colleagues dated 7 August 2025 sets out in detail their reasons We adopt those without repeating them as they remain entirely relevant as nothing has changed to reduce those concerns. In addition, the Respondent has now received a hearing date for the trial. It is patently clear that SCW cannot conclude their investigations until the conclusion of the trial.[9]DECISION The application to extend the Order to 27 August 2027 is granted. 28. First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Date Issued: 10 August 2026

order

(a). is necessary for the protection of the public; (b). is otherwise in the public interest; or (c). is in the interests of the registered person. Section 144(6) where an interim order is made, it takes effect immediately and may not have effect for a period of more than 18 months (unless it is extended). Section 146 an interim order must be reviewed by an IOP within six months of the date on which the interim order was imposed. If, following a review under section 146, an interim order remains in place, it must be further reviewed within six months of the date of the review. section 148(1) SCW may apply to the Tribunal for an interim order to be extended or further extended . section 146(2), on an application, the Tribunal may – (a). revoke the interim order; (b) in the case of a conditional registration order, revoke or vary any condition, the interim suspension order with an interim conditional registration order; (c). extend, or further extend, the order for up to 12 months; (d) make no change to the order or to the period for which the order is to have effect. The Burden and Standard of Proof In these proceedings the burden is on SCW, as the applicant, to demonstrate that the conditions in Section 144(5) of the 2016 Act have been met. The standard of proof is the same as in civil proceedings, it is for SCW to discharge on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal must make its decision based on all the evidence available to it as at the date of the hearing. The Issues The Tribunal must consider whether the Order should be extended beyond 27 August 2026. The Tribunal may: (a). extend the interim order until 27 August 2026, as applied for; (b). extend the interim order, but for a shorter period; (c). make no change to the interim order; or (d). revoke the interim order.