Following receipt of strong written submissions by Jake Herman and Regulatory Defence, the Health & Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’) has cleared our client, a chartered psychologist, of all misconduct allegations. Her former employer brought these claims, but the HCPC Investigating Committee Panel concluded that our client had no case to answer.
The former employer accused our client of working secondary employment during her contracted hours. They also alleged that she took unauthorised or excessive annual leave. The HCPC suggested these actions were dishonest, claiming our client misled her employer and worked without implied or express consent.
The Panel reviewed evidence from both sides, including documents, timesheets, and statements from the employer’s HR advisor. Past communications between our client and her employer were also part of the evidence. In response, Regulatory Defence submitted several supportive testimonials as well as a detailed rebuttal, setting out exactly why these allegations were spurious in nature.
After reviewing our submissions, the Panel noted significant confusion around the employment terms between our client and her employer. Poor communication between the two parties caused misunderstandings and led to conflicting interpretations of events.
The Panel determined that the HCPC could not realistically prove the allegations at a future hearing. The evidence lacked clarity, and significant conflicts between the employer’s and our client’s accounts could not be resolved. The decision-making process prevented the Panel from fact-finding at this stage, leading them to decline the case.
The HCPC also acknowledged that gathering further evidence wouldn’t likely change the outcome. As a result, the Panel found no case to answer and dismissed the allegations without considering dishonesty, misconduct, or impairment.
This decision provided our client with much-needed relief, closing an ordeal that lasted almost 10 months.
About HCPC Investigating Committee decisions
The HCPC Investigating Committee is an independent panel that considers cases once the investigation is complete. It meets in private and applies the case to answer test, asking whether there is a case to answer that warrants referral to a full fitness to practise hearing. The Investigating Committee can close the case, issue a warning, propose undertakings, or refer to a hearing panel.
A finding of no case to answer at the Investigating Committee stage is a complete vindication. It means the panel concluded that even on the basis of the evidence the HCPC has gathered, there is no realistic prospect of the allegations being proved at a hearing. Achieving a no case to answer outcome depends on the quality of the representations provided before the Investigating Committee considers the case. Written submissions that directly address the allegations, present the available evidence in the most favourable light, and anticipate and rebut the case against the registrant are essential.
Employer-initiated HCPC referrals, as in this case, often involve allegations that appear serious on paper but do not withstand scrutiny when the full context is presented. The dishonesty allegation here was the most serious element of the case. Regulatory Defence demonstrated that the facts alleged did not support a finding of dishonesty, and that the client had acted with the implied consent of her employer at all material times. The Investigating Committee agreed.
If you are facing a prolonged fitness-to-practice investigation, contact Regulatory Defence for a free consultation today.