Social Care Wales v Wayne Pontin

This is an application to extend an interim order, made by Social Care Wales (SCW, the Applicant), pursuant to section 148 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (the Act). This is the second application from the Applicant. On 2 May 2025, the Tribunal heard the first application and extended the interim order for nine months, until 12 February 2026.

Mr Pontin (the Respondent) has been registered with SCW as a residential childcare worker (a type of social care worker) since 5 October 2018. The Respondent was made the subject of an interim order, an interim suspension order, on 13 November 2023. The maximum length of an interim order imposed by the Applicant is 18 months. Any extension to the 18-month period can only be made by way of an application to the First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal).

The interim order was reviewed and continued by the Applicant's Interim Orders Panel, on 9 May 2024, 6 November 2024 and 1 August 2025.

On 8 December 2025, the Applicant made its second application to extend the interim order to the Tribunal. The application requests that the Tribunal extend the interim suspension order for six months until 12 August 2026.

This was a remote hearing held on video. There were no significant connectivity issues.

The Respondent is registered with the Applicant as a residential childcare worker. Mr Pontin was employed by a Borough Council known to the Tribunal and the parties (the Council) as a residential recovery and intervention officer and occasionally as a night supervisor at a location known to the parties and the Tribunal.

On 9 January 2023, the Applicant received a referral from the Council concerning Mr Pontin’s alleged behaviour towards Child A during the course of his employment on three occasions, once on 6 September 2022 and twice on 8 September 2022. Child A is vulnerable, not only because of their age, but because of their background.

Concerns were raised by fellow employees when reviewing CCTV footage, a standard practice following any incident of physical intervention being used on a child/young person. The CCTV footage of 8 September 2022 was reported as showing Mr Pontin pushing Child A and later using an inappropriate restraint technique. A further review of CCTV footage from 6 September 2022 was reported as showing Mr Pontin pushing Child A.

Mr Pontin’s employer suspended him and completed a disciplinary investigation. A disciplinary hearing took place on 21 July 2023, which resulted in Mr Pontin’s dismissal for gross misconduct. The Applicant commenced its fitness to practise investigation after receipt of the documentation from the Council, on 6 September 2023.

The statutory framework for the registration of social care workers is set out in the Act. The Applicant's statutory function is set out at section 68(1) of the Act – to protect, promote and maintain the safety and well-being of the public in Wales. Under section 68(2) of the Act, the Applicant is required to promote and maintain high standards in the provision of care and support services, high standards of conduct and practice among social care workers, high standards in the training of social care workers, and public confidence in social care workers.

Under section 144(5) of the Act, an Interim Orders Panel may make an interim order only if it is satisfied that the order is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interest of the registered person.

Under section 144(4) of the Act, there are two types of interim order – an interim suspension order or an interim conditional registration order.

Section 146 sets out the requirements for reviewing the interim order. It must be reviewed within six months of its imposition, by an Interim Orders Panel. Subsequently, it is reviewed at six-month intervals.

Under section 148(2) of the Act, on an application to extend the interim order, this Tribunal can revoke the interim order, revoke or vary any condition in respect of an interim conditional registration order, extend, or further extend, the order for up to 12 months or make no change to the order or to the period for which the order is to have effect.

The Applicant has produced ‘Guidance on Indicative Disposals for the Fitness to Practise Panel and Interim Order imposed by the Interim Orders Panel’. Under section 112(1) of the Act, the Applicant is required to publish a code of practice which sets standards of conduct and practice expected of social care workers. The document is entitled ‘Code of Professional Practice for Social Care (the Code).

The leading authority on the approach to take to an application to extend an interim order remains General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, in which the Court of Appeal set out a number of principles which are routinely applied by the Administrative Court, in dealing with the same applications from a number of statutory regulators with the same or very similar statutory functions to the Applicant.

In summary, the Tribunal must independently determine whether the extension is necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the registered person's own interest, applying the same criteria as for the original interim order. The burden rests on the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the extension criteria are satisfied. The Tribunal does not conduct a full merits hearing or make primary findings of fact but assesses whether the allegations justify continuing the interim order. The Tribunal should take into account the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to service users, the reasons why the case has not concluded and the prejudice to the registered person if an interim order is continued. The Tribunal must reach its decision on the basis of the evidence in the application, which includes evidence as to the opinion of the Applicant and its Interim Orders Panel as to the need for an interim order. Finally, the Tribunal is not bound to follow or defer to these opinions, but it should give such weight as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

The Fitness to Practise Panel which disposes of the matter in the manner set out at sections 135 to 138 of the Act, must revoke the interim order. Under section 146(4) of the Act, an Interim Orders Panel must review the interim order, if extended by the Tribunal, within three months of the date of extension.

The Tribunal made an order pursuant to Rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008, which prohibits the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify Child A.

Mr Pontin did not attend the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (the Rules), the Tribunal has the power to proceed in a party’s absence if it 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 the Tribunal considers it in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

The Tribunal administration confirmed with the Tribunal that Mr Pontin had been sent the notification of hearing, to an email address held by the Applicant for Mr Pontin, on 15 December 2025. On 20 January 2026, the Tribunal administration also sent Mr Pontin the information concerning the video hearing link. Mr Pontin did not respond to either email. Mr Miles confirmed that since the point when the Applicant had sent its application to the Tribunal, there had been no contact from Mr Pontin.

The last engagement Mr Pontin had with the Applicant was on 29 April 2025.

The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Pontin had been notified of the 22 January 2026 hearing. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Pontin had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. The Tribunal then went on to conclude that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

The interim order was due to expire on 12 February 2026 and if the hearing did not proceed on 22 January 2026, it would have been very unlikely that it could be rearranged for a date before the expiry of the interim order. The Tribunal had regard to the statutory function of the Applicant and balanced it against the right of Mr Pontin to attend and engage in the proceedings. Given the lack of engagement with the application to this Tribunal, the Tribunal concluded that not proceeding with the hearing today would not result in Mr Pontin's attendance at some later date and would run counter to Rule 2 of the Rules (the overriding objective) as it would run the substantial risk of expiry of the interim order without due and proper consideration by this Tribunal, in its supervisory role.

As a result, the Tribunal decided it was proportionate, fair and just to proceed with the hearing in the Respondent’s absence.

In addition to Mrs Parker's oral evidence, the Tribunal considered a hearing bundle consisting of 553 digital pages. The Tribunal also reviewed eight CCTV excerpts, three excerpts were different angles of one incident on 6 September 2022, three excerpts were different angles of an incident on 8 September 2022, and two excerpts were different angles of a second incident on 8 September 2022. The Tribunal also had the benefit of a skeleton argument from the Applicant dated 12 January 2026.

In oral evidence, Mrs Parker confirmed that there had been delay caused by two aspects of the investigation, since the point the Tribunal extended the interim order in May 2025. From 30 April 2025, a point at which Mr Pontin had indicated that he was interested in pursuing agreed removal from the register to 25 June 2025, the Applicant sought to obtain further information from Mr Pontin to enable it to progress the request for agreed removal. Mr Pontin had not provided the further information. Secondly, on 23 June 2025, the Applicant completed a witness interview with a particular witness. The Applicant then chased the witness to return their reviewed, proposed witness statement from 11 August 2025 to a date in September 2025, after 12 September 2025, when a decision was reached to proceed with the investigation without the evidence from the witness.

Mrs Parker updated the Tribunal to explain that the pre hearing review before the Fitness to Practise Panel will now take place on 4 February 2026. After that pre hearing review, the Applicant will make arrangements to schedule the final hearing of the allegations. The Applicant intends to call four witnesses to provide oral evidence to the Fitness to Practise Panel (comprises of three individuals). There is a strong likelihood that the hearing will take place in mid-April 2026 at the earliest.

Mrs Parker made clear that if the Tribunal decided to extend the interim order, the case would be sent to the Interim Orders Panel for a review hearing within three months of the date of extension.

We carefully considered all of the evidence in the appeal, which included the views of the Applicant and the previous Interim Orders Panel, as well as Mr Pontin's positions, set out in correspondence dated 7 November 2023, 7 April 2025 and 30 April 2025.

We concluded that the threshold for an interim order to be extended is met. Some form of interim restriction remains necessary for protection of the public as the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the risk of repetition had been lessened due to the limited engagement from Mr Pontin. The engagement, thus far, did not allay the ongoing concern about a risk of repetition, given the nature of the allegations, which, based on a review of the CCTV excerpts and the witness statements, can be reasonably characterised as serious incidents of inappropriate physical contact with a child and inappropriate restraint use, which it is alleged are contrary to Regulation 29(1) of the Regulated Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) Regulations 2017.

In the circumstances, in order to conclude that the risk of repetition has been lessened, the Tribunal would need to see significant and credible evidence of reflection and remediation. The Tribunal did not have sufficient information from Mr Pontin to lead it to conclude that there has been a period of reflection and understanding of the seriousness of the alleged conduct. In the Tribunal’s view, the interim response remains proportionate, particularly in the absence of any information about the impact of the order on Mr Pontin's employment or actions since the incident to demonstrate remediation and an understanding of what he would do differently in the context of caring for vulnerable children/young people.

Next, the Tribunal found that an interim order remains necessary in order to meet the public interest. The public interest concerns not only the interest of a reasonably informed member of the public, but the interests of other social care workers, in ensuring that individuals under investigation for serious allegations are not able to practise unrestricted unless there are very clear reasons as to why an interim restriction is not necessary. Again, due to the lack of relevant evidence as to remediation from Mr Pontin, the Tribunal does not consider this case to be one which may have met any exceptional circumstances for not extending the interim order.

Further, the Tribunal took into account the views of the Applicant and the Interim Orders Panel. The Tribunal paid careful regard to the fact that the interim order is subject to a relatively frequent review by a specialist panel and, of course, the fact that at any point, Mr Pontin can request an earlier review of the interim order, and one will be held.

Finally, the proportionality assessment also required the Tribunal to consider the justification for a further extension of six months. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reasons for the delay are extremely unfortunate, but, it would appear, unavoidable. Mrs Parker provided a detailed explanation as to the next steps with the final stages of the fitness to practise proceedings, which led the Tribunal to conclude that six months is a realistic timescale. The Tribunal took into account the impact on Mr Pontin of imposing a shorter period of extension and, if in the unlikely event that the Fitness to Practise Panel could not complete the hearing within the shorter time period. In the Tribunal’s judgment, a third application to this Tribunal to extend the interim order would have a detrimental impact on Mr Pontin. This is based on information known to the Tribunal and the parties.

The Tribunal would consider it highly concerning to see a further application to extend the interim order, given that it relates to allegations based on incidents which took place in September 2022.

We balance these factors, taking into account that we are not making findings of fact at this stage, but engaging in an assessment of risk, based on the evidence from the Applicant, the limited information from the Respondent and the application of the statutory grounds for continuing an interim order.

At the hearing, we were assured that the outstanding steps in the regulatory process will now move expeditiously, with a view to a resolution within the next three months, not only for Mr Pontin, but for the wider public interest. We have concluded that the interim order remains necessary and proportionate. We have further concluded that it should be extended for the requested period of six months.

Pursuant to section 148(2)(c) of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the interim order is extended for six months until 12 August 2026.