An Open Letter to Mr Marc Seale, Registrar - HCPC

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Mr. Marc Seale
Registrar and Chief Executive
Health and Care Professions Council
LONDON
3 December 2013

Dear Mr Seale

I write following my recent conviction on 11 November at the City of London Magistrates Court, of an offence contrary to Article 39(1)(b) of the Health Professions 2001 Order, where I was fined £270 with a victim surcharge of £70 plus your costs, which are in excess of £6,000.

You have since issued a press release on your website, which has now been circulated amongst other media outlets which can be summarized as:

As I have no recourse to change this misleading information, I am taking the liberty of issuing an open letter to you through our professional forum, whose membership includes many thousands of registrant podiatrists that have a keen interest in these proceedings. I am also requesting that they cascade this letter to other respected colleagues who may, as yet, be unaware of the circumstances leading to this prosecution and to whatever other parties they may consider appropriate.

The one thing you have successfully achieved is to avoid the central argument in this case, namely, that the Health and Care Professions Council is knowingly endangering the public through the very process that you claim is designed to protect them.

My position has always been clear on this matter and is simply that the Health Care Professions Act does not offer sufficient public protection. Under the Act, only those professionals who have undertaken an approved university degree and register with you can use the legally protected titles “chiropodist” or “podiatrist”. But there is nothing to stop someone who has been removed from the HCPC register, or who has undergone a lesser, unregulated training programme carrying out the same functions as a chiropodist or podiatrist, providing they use a different title. Removing someone who is considered a public risk, under this legislation, has the effect of simply removing any statutory scrutiny thus increasing that risk.

This is the situation I asked you, as Registrar, directly about in two letters in 2008 and to which you afforded me no reply. These matters are of paramount importance for my colleagues as they very much influence both the practice environment for the profession and safety and well-being of the members of the public who seek our care. It was your lack of response to my letters that led to my decision to deregister with the HCPC in the first instance.

From the very outset, I have always made public my position; to my colleagues in the profession, my patients and all the agencies that I deal with in the course of my practice. I have never sought to hide the fact that I had deregistered or why, nor have I sought to influence or coerce others to do the same. Following discussion with your officers, I removed all reference to “HPC and Registered” from all stationary and public websites and made full disclosure regarding my registration status since 2008. It would have been quite easy to have deregistered and called myself an unprotected title such as Foot Health Practitioner or Foot and Ankle Surgeon and not face any risk of prosecution. But that would be completely missing the point.

I have to confess that I don’t know whether you are legally obliged to reply to a clinician of some thirty years experience – you haven’t done so to date. On each occasion your officers contacted me, they have always politely informed me that they cannot change the legislation – as have your legal agents, who also pointed out that the Magistrates Court was similarly powerless to do so to. I fully accept this, but my enquiry was always what action you, as Registrar, were taking to address this anomaly.

By deregistering, I had hoped you would focus sufficient attention to this matter and give me the courtesy of a reply, but in the event, that hope was badly misplaced. I trust now after five years and a criminal prosecution, you will give due consideration to this matter and respond publicly to these grave concerns.

I would also like you to consider the prosecution of this case. This was the first time you have exercised your statutory powers as a criminal prosecutor for a misuse of title offence – the first time in the history of regulation of my profession. You will also have received the Notice of Appeal, which I have lodged with the court and I am now making available online to my colleagues and you will note the grounds on which the appeal is founded.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by the manner in which the case was presented by the prosecution in court. You have been well aware of the reasons I deregistered and that I have never sought to hide the fact, yet your portrayal of me as a mischievous individual who deliberately misled patients and colleagues was completely inaccurate and unfounded. That you would prosecute a case in such a manner against a registrant of many years experience that has simply sought to highlight an issue of significant public and professional importance, should be a matter of concern, not only to the court, but also to the wider professions that you regulate. Does the desire to secure a conviction over-ride the responsibility of accountability in matters of public safety?

Unfortunately, our law does not recognise the defence of necessity. But that is very much how I feel in taking the action that has led to my prosecution. I have already made my plea in mitigation available to my peers and you may avail yourself of their comments here. Your primary function is to safeguard the public from those registrants who fail to meet your standards of conduct and competency. When you remove an unsafe practitioner from the register, you significantly increase the risk the public faces when that practitioner continues in practice under a different title, without any further scrutiny.

An appropriate analogy might be the guilty rapist who is sentenced to serve his time back in the community - but with a different identity. In many cases, that is the effect of your regulatory process under the existing legislation and your refusal to discuss or even acknowledge this situation, as Registrar of the HCPC, gives me sufficient grounds, morally, at least, in breaching the Act in an attempt to prevent a greater harm.

You will note that I am only appealing the award of costs, not the conviction or fine. I had not planned on having a criminal conviction at this stage in my career but equally, I am not ashamed by it, as I believe I have taken a principled stance and have acted with complete integrity at all times. I am in no position to pay your costs, nor would I be minded to do so, even if I were. I would think that most observing these events would reach a similar conclusion to myself that to be liable for your costs in such circumstances as founded in my appeal would be a perverse aberration.

I sincerely hope that you, as a prosecutor, and the court might, after some reflection, agree. If that is not the case then I stand to lose both my liberty and my livelihood and whilst, even at this stage, I would hope that a sense of reality might prevail, I should add that I am also prepared for that consequence should it occur.

You will also note that I have petitioned government on this very issue since my conviction and I hope that with wider interest, support from within the profession and public will grow. If anything, my determination on this issue remains resolute and stronger than ever and you can be assured that I will continue to highlight these serious deficiencies until they are addressed, whatever my circumstances.

Obviously I would prefer to do so as a registrant in my profession whilst looking after the needs of my patients as I have done so throughout my career. But that, of course, is very much dependent on your decision with my appeal.

Finally, I would politely request that you remove or amend your press release in regard to the term “with intent to deceive” as this implies dishonesty which is both injurious and defamatory. This may well be the wording in the legislation, but it is completely inappropriate and grossly misleading and I would be grateful if it could be removed.

My colleagues and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Mark Russell

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Regina –v- Russell
On behalf of the Health and Care Professions Council
Case No: 1300825434



I would like to ask the court to re-consider my case, which was heard at the City of London Magistrates Court on 11 November 2013 when I was convicted of an offence contrary to Article 39(1)(b) of the Health Professions 2001 Order and fined £270 plus costs which are in excess of £6,000. I do not wish to challenge the conviction or the fine, but I would like to ask the court to re-consider the allocation of costs, which were awarded against me.

I would like to state at the outset that I fully accept the conviction following my guilty plea and I am grateful to the court for the leniency shown in the fine imposed, which is very much at the lower end of the scale. I would also ask that the court considers this matter on an administrative basis as I am mindful and reluctant to incur more costs at this stage, and on that basis I am forwarding this appeal to the prosecution as they will have to consider and agree to the terms suggested.

On the matter of costs, I would like the court to consider the following.

1. I have been unable to appoint legal representation or to seek formal legal advice on this matter, due to cost. I am well aware that this has impaired by ability to address several matters of procedure properly, which, in hindsight, has impacted on the outcome substantially.

2. Notwithstanding the above, I was presented with a schedule of costs twenty minutes before the hearing on 11 November 2013 and was informed by the prosecution that they may ask the court to impose costs. I did not realize the significance of this at the time. I did not even realize that I had to complete a means statement for the court until after I was presented with the costs schedule.

3. With respect to means, I would like the court to consider my circumstances. I alluded in my plea of mitigation that, as a result of my de-registration with the HCPC in 2008, my income has dropped substantially. On average I have lost between £8,500 and £9,300 each year in lost fees as I am now unable to claim through some medical insurance schemes. In addition to the above, my income has further dropped due to a forced change in practice relocation and a deterioration in my own and my family’s health. My mother died four years ago with Motor Neurone Disease and my father - an ex-HCPC registrant is currently in the advanced stages of Alzheimer’s disease. All of which has taken me away from my clinical practice, which I presently spend between one and two days a week. My gross income for 2011-12 was £14,329 and from November 2012- November 2013, my gross income was only £8,340. Aside from a twenty two year old car and a very limited number of personal effects, I have no assets. I do not own any property and I currently live in a rented property in St Annes. I am happy to make available my bank account details, accounts and any other financial information for the court’s consideration.

4. Served with the original summons earlier this year as per disclosure, was evidence which contained, in the witness statement from JC and RB, an email from HE, the wife of RE, an Osteopath, whom I used to rent a room from for my practice. Attached to her email were several letters, invoices and receipts, which were taken from my patient files, a copy of which was retained, without my knowledge or consent, on their practice computer after I left the practice.

At the initial hearing in May, I produced the original letters, invoices and receipts, which were held in the patient notes together with signed witness statements from the two secretaries who typed the original documents. These clearly demonstrated that these documents had been fraudulently amended by inserting the titles “HPC Registered, Registered and State Registered” to prefix the title of podiatrist and that the complaint was malicious and unfounded.

In discussion and during a subsequent telephone conversation with the prosecution, they accepted that this evidence should be removed and agreement was reached on that basis and confirmed in an email. The email read:


Further to our discussions at the preliminary hearing last week, please find the following documents attached:
1. The revised witness statement of RB. Paragraph 15 has been now been amended and pages 27-32 of the exhibits have been removed.
2. The revised witness statement of JC. Paragraph 6 has now been amended. (I recall that in our discussion you also raised an issue regarding the evidence produced from third party websites, namely that you do not have any control over their content. The degree of control that you have over what appears on different websites is a matter for you to raise in your own defence, if you wish to defend yourself on that basis. Hence, parts remain in JC's statement merely as evidence of what she found when she searched the internet).
3. The draft admissions prepared by our Counsel.
If you agree to the amended witness statements I would be grateful if you could confirm so in writing by 14 June 2013, in accordance with the Court's directions. This will save time and costs of these witnesses attending the trial.

On the basis that this evidence was, under joint agreement, removed from the summons, I submitted a change of plea.

In the prosecution’s submission to the court in the case summary on 11 November 2013 it was stated:

“Since allowing his registration to lapse in 2008, Mr Russell has signed himself variously in doctor’s letters, patient invoices and receipts as a self-styled HPC Registered Podiatrist, Registered Podiatrist and State Registered Chiropodist, in what we suggest is a deceptive manner”

I have never signed myself HPC Registered, Registered or State Registered in any correspondence, before or after August 2008. In all correspondence since embarking on my professional career, I have only signed myself Podiatrist. Since de-registering in 2008, I have written and explained my position to my patients, colleagues and all service users and well as highlighting the issue on my own website. At no time have I sought to deceive or misinform any person regarding my registration status.

It is my submission that the prosecution has led evidence that was inadmissible and in doing so I would suggest that his has placed undue influence on the Magistrates when determining the sentence. I accept that this may be an oversight on the prosecution’s part but as it suggests an element of deception, it is factually incorrect as well as inadmissible.

5. The evidence led by the prosecution during the case summary gave an erroneous impression of my position. It is suggested that I had acted in a mischievous fashion and had not complied with the correspondence and requests to cease and desist. Again that suggests an element of deception and is factually incorrect. I would like the court to take into account that before de-registering in 2008, I had written twice to the Chief Executive and Registrar raising my concerns at the impact the legislation has in impairing the primary function of the regulator - public safety.

I received no response to either of my letters and whilst I accept that there may have been an element of haste in my decision, I have also reached the stage in my life that I have little respect for those in public positions who promote an aura of unaccountability in matters of public safety. My decision to de-register was entirely principled. I believe, that as a health professional of thirty years experience, I have valid and serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of the current legislation. It is worth pointing out to the Court that had the Registrar had responded to either of my letters in 2008, there would have been no prosecution and no costs. On each occasion I had contact with the HCPC since 2008 and in correspondence with the HCPC agents I had always made it clear that I was aware that I was in breach of the Act, but that I was perfectly willing to comply and re-register if my concerns set out in my letters in 2008, were addressed.

6. I am also aware that the matters set out in 4. And 5. above should have been challenged in court during the proceedings and my failure to do so will have unduly influenced the magistrates in reaching their decision on costs, which is extremely unfortunate. I trust the court will take into account my inexperience in these matters and will reflect on the impression created by the prosecution during these deliberations.

7. I fully accept the conviction and fine in respect of this offence, but I would ask the court to consider the impact on the question of costs. I am not in a position to make any payment towards costs. I couldn’t meet the costs of my own legal counsel in this case. I cannot meet the costs of the prosecution. The effect of costs being applied will close my practice, which is already in a perilous financial position because of the expenses incurred to date with the accompanying loss in income. That being the case I will have no income and no means to pay the costs and this may lead to imprisonment for non-payment of the fine. Whilst I appreciate the prosecution’s position on deterrence and compliance, I ask the court to consider the reality of this sentence and the impact that it will have on my ability to maintain any income. Had I been aware of the significance of challenging the application of costs and setting out clearly my current means at the time of the hearing I would have done so, however I was so taken aback by the evidence the prosecution had led that I omitted to do so.

If the court were so minded to reconsider the application of costs, I would give further assurance that I would apply for re-registration with the HCPC immediately, provided this criminal conviction does not impair that ability – and that I will return to practice fully compliant with the regulation. I will also continue to press for change in the legislation so that the public will have the safeguards that are needed to ensure their safety in the healthcare environment.

In asking the Magistrates Court to reconsider their decision in this case – administratively initially – I also have to ask the Court to further extend the time of this appeal for another 21 days. If the Court and prosecution are not minded to change the application of costs informally and administratively, then I would ask the Court formally to reconsider the sentence on the basis of the foregoing and if necessary, appeal the sentence to the Crown Court for consideration.



Mark Russell

 

I hope Mark, that you`re not digging a deeper hole for yourself. You had your day in court, the fact that you missed issues and that you may be 'right' on most points, with the opposition introducing inadmissable evidence, is largely irrelevant.

Ever had a parking ticket wrongly given, then tried to get it cancelled ? Magistrates court`s are not there to consider higher issues, particularly after a plea of guilty is entered. The line of least resistance is their way.

As for the HCPC, do you think they have a wish to be reasonable towards you ?

I read this in a news report this morning : `the Court of Appeal, which today ruled that the previous decisions should be upheld, even though the judges thought there had been "legal errors" in the previous decisions`.

No fun in living 'on the edge' ..............!

 

Mark.


I really do hope you have done your homework this time.

Are you absolutely sure you can appeal on costs???

are you sure this can be dealt with as an administration.

are you sure this will not be sent straight to the appeals court and if heard and if you lose you may find your costs doubled!!!!

Ignorance of the law is no defence

 

Hello again, Pauline.

As my homework has included a few hours with one of these bright young barristers I am also further depleted, but rather more enlightened. In for a penny, as they say. You didn't answer my question to you in the other thread - as a magistrate, how would you feel when a decision you have made in court was influenced by the presentation of evidence you subsequently discovered was inadmissible and evidentially unsound? Does the defence of ignorance apply here?

Kind regards
Mark

 

I don't know, John. As ever, you just do what you think is right and that is the under-riding factor. I don't think the law is necessarily the arbiter of what is right or what is wrong, only what is legal and what is not. If you are fortunate in life, your perception of what is right and what is wrong will not come into conflict with the legal position, but if it does, it creates another conflict - how much you are prepared to sacrifice your principles. I don't know whether the matters referred to are irrelevant to a court of law, but they are not to me, nor are they to many colleagues, I expect - you included. judging by what you have written over the years. The only difference being the perception of what is and where the edge lies!

 

referring to your appeal letter.

after all that you have been through,


you are intending to re-join the HPC ( if allowed)

WHATEVER!!!!!

 

Pauline, that's exactly what I thought.

Wherever Mark's perception of where the 'edge' was, he clearly went over it.

 

Pauline,

How about answering Marks` question, that he has repeatedly and politely posed to you?

It would appear that you and John have missed the point. Mark clearly stated his reasons for de-registering;

So, now the HCPC have started to take note, I see no reason why he shouldn`t re-register if he wishes to. The principle of the case still stands and is now being brought to the attention of a wider audience.

 

so how have the HCPC started to take note?

Still doesn't make sense to me that Mark would go to all the trouble he has, end up with a criminal record and then want to join again..

I wonder if they will let him ,after all he has cost them a lot of grief and money,

It will be interesting if they allow some one with a criminal record to register ,after all they seem to refuse registration for all kind of misdemeanours ,even cautions!!!

 

Still no courteous reply then?

I guess some people just refuse to understand principles. Nevermind.

 

Blinda

I guess some people just refuse to understand principles. Never mind.


Why so confrontational ? As we know, there are many examples of court decisions where subsequently evidence was found to be flawed. How a magistrate feels about that, or how you or I feel about it has no relevance. You have to travel this life on how it is; there`s a process for bringing to the courts cases of wrong evidence but to succeed you would have to expose a major flaw and certainly not after pleading guilty.

I see no reason why he shouldn`t re-register if he wishes to.

Again the fact that you see no reason has little relevance; you`re not the arbiter.

So, now the HCPC have started to take note

Not at all, they have been aware of their 'non fit for purpose' since their inception; I and others had a long dialogue at the beginning but who would turn down good money for doing a 'show job' ?

The fact is, Mark embarked on a course representing his own views and not at the behest of anyone else. He took a risk, many cautioned him as to the likely outcome, but he persisted; he then changed his plea to guilty !

Was he mistaken, misguided, his strategy weak and should he suffer the consequences of his actions ?

 

No, John. I am not being confrontational, just a little disappointed with negativity. Of course my own opinion is of little relevance, as is yours. You accuse me of judging, yet suggest that he may be “mistaken, misguided, etc”.

I am not in a position to speak on behalf of Mark, or the HCPC. We shall have to wait and see the outcome of `his actions`.

 

Blinda

You accuse me of judging

Not at all

yet you suggest that he may be “mistaken, misguided, etc”.


Not at all, it was a question, not a suggestion.

I`d be interested in your opinion. Has Mark`s escapade furthered our aim in changing the HCPC (preferably abolishing it) or do they feel strengthened by the outcome of their action against Mark ?

 

John

I'm beginning to feel a little like Mark Twain after learning of his own obituary in a newspaper! I think your choice of words belies your own feelings but matters have not yet been concluded and whilst arm-chair criticism and comments are always welcome, I wonder if they are really relevant.

Kind regards

 

Arbiter = `One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue`.

OK, it was a suggestive question, then.

Again, a suggestive question. Where has Mark ever stated that he wishes to change or abolish the HCPC?

Remember, it`s the legislation that is key here. Not the regulatory body enforcing it.

 

Mark

I think your choice of words belies your own feelings but matters have not yet been concluded and whilst arm-chair criticism and comments are always welcome, I wonder if they are really relevant.


Of course I have views but at the same time accept they are irrelevant unless in considering them an individual is influenced.

Blinda

Where has Mark ever stated that he wishes to change or abolish the HCPC?

I really don`t know, I did not say that he had, I said 'our aim', meaning those that wanted to change it. Maybe Mark doesn`t want it changed, I`m sure he`ll confirm or otherwise.

Remember, it`s the legislation that is key here. Not the regulatory body enforcing it.

Quite. I can`t quite see the pathway from Mark`s conviction (court) to the legislature. That`s not being suggestive but purely a question on a debating forum !

 

John

I think it might be difficult to find any colleague that thinks the current regulation of the profession is serving either the public or the profession well. Likewise I don't think there is any real difference in our views - except perhaps what we are prepared to do about it and at what point do we act. I have set out the reasons why I deregistered above - we can discuss the appropriateness or effectiveness or impact of that decision elsewhere and in due course, but I had hoped for a response from the Registrar in this thread and I think that might be unlikely if it degenerates into just another introspective professional naval-gazing contest.

As far as my appeal is concerned, I would hope the court and HCPC would consider carefully the grounds submitted - irrespective of my plea. Suppose I was appearing as an expert witness in a case of negligence by a podiatric surgeon following a procedure on a patient who consequently lost her leg due to infection. If, during my examination of the records and interview with the patient, I discovered that the post-operative infection was caused, not by any negligence on the surgeon's part, but by an accident with a lawnmower a few days after the operation - and the negligence action was nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to gain compensation - then my duties and responsibilities should be quite clear. If I omitted to tell the court what I had discovered - not that it would get to that stage - or if I gave evidence, knowing it to be untrue - then I would quite properly be seriously reprimanded and most likely be struck-off, if I were a registrant. I would have thought the same standards apply to everyone - in the judicial system, at least - but especially so with the Registrar and HCPC who sets and enforces the standards we work to.

Pathways? There are none other than trying to influence those that legislate - and look how successful fifty years of professional influencing has been. Sometimes you just have to say no more.

Best wishes

 

Has Mark`s escapade furthered our aim in changing the HCPC (preferably abolishing it) or do they feel strengthened by the outcome of their action against Mark ?[/QUOTE]


I would suggest the second part.

They can now say if you don't do as we say, we will take you to court, we have already done so and succeeded

 

.....and will do whatever is necessary to secure a conviction, including misleading the court and tabling inadmissible evidence

 

Hence, my reason for bowing out now and sincerely hope that I haven`t detracted from the aim of this thread.

Regards to everyone,
Bel

 

Mark

There's no reason why this thread should degenerate. You have properly chosen to use this discussion to highlight an issue you feel strongly about. Some participants have responded in a comforting manner others in a more constructive and supportive manner, with some very helpful advice, the latter I believe is more useful.

It seems however, that you wish to control the debate and as such I will leave it to you, with two final comments.

I cannot conceive that the Registrar would ever join in this discussion.

Consider, is it sensible to repeat actions and to expect a different outcome.

 

Hi John

I'm not trying to control any debate - there has been plenty of comment on the Regulation of Podiatry thread - this is simply intended as an open letter to Marc Seale, the reasons explained above.

I'm not quite at Mildred Ratched's office window just yet, John - I'm still too busy watching the spider...

Kind regards
Mark

 

Mark.

has it not occurred to you to get some finance( loan) and pay a professional to represent you in the appeal.?

After all is that not what you are fighting for? to only have qualified Chiropodists/Podiatrists practising on the feet?

How would you feel for some one to "take advice" from a young podiatrist and then decide to treat feet!!! with NO training what so ever

seems to me that's exactly what you are doing ( and by your own words not very well!!)

 

Cheers Pauline. Super advice..

 

Mark - you are right, a lot of podiatrists do feel that registration with the HCPC is problematic for the reasons that you have been saying. Perhaps what is needed is a collective response. If your letters were sent to professional bodies such as the Institute and Society along with a strong membership petition, they may think that it would be a worthy cause to challenge the situation as it currently stands and try to initiate reform. A lawyer could then be hired by the professional bodies and also political pressure for increased public protection could also be generated. We must also remember that the professionals, as well as the public should have respect for their own registering body, if this is not the case then collective action may be the next course of action.

 

A short update to the foregoing. Last week, I wrote to the HCPC requesting a meeting to discuss this case and I received a reply on Friday which reads:

My reply:

Meanwhile, in another not altogether unrelated matter:

Whilst same old, same old

Separately I have also received notification that the Appeal has been sent to the Central Criminal Court for consideration and I shall update you on its progress in due course. I also understand that Podiatry Now has reprinted the HCPC press release and I am grateful to all the concerned messages from colleagues, directly and indirectly since publication. An article will be submitted in response for the next Journal.

Best wishes to all for the festive period.

Mark

 

There are various ways to make a point

 

Dear Down Trodden,

Thank you for your kind words and up beat message. Always appreciated.

Mark

 

Wish you well, did no mean to offend. x

 

I dont believe that for a minute. I dont know what or who prompted you to delete your original post, nor do i particularly care. Tip; take the time to read other posts on a subject matter to prevent making a fool of yourself by leaping to an uninformed opinion and sleep on a post before you hit 'submit reply', particularly if you intend to write in a negative or spiteful manner.

 

Blinda

Free speech ! A chap makes a comment that is perfectly valid, he's independent and has based his comment on what he has read and yet you castigate him for not agreeing with you.

Can I ask, how important is it for a clinician to have professional indemnity and how would you describe one who did not bother to obtain it ?

Regards

 

John

Are you suggesting I practice without practice indemnity insurance? And did you actually read the original post by the referred contributor? I would have hoped the spoon arm might be showing signs of fatigue by now.

You say he's an independent contributor - how do you know? As far as I can see it's just another anonymous sh!t stirrer that hasn't the guts to put its name to a puerile comment. You don't miss many opportunities to throw barbs these days - but at least you do so under your own name and perhaps that subjugates an explanation of sorts. If you don't mind I've just found out that a close family member has been diagnosed with lung cancer this evening so my attention might be diverted elsewhere for a bit, but please give it a rest, my friend, it is becoming tiresome.



Best wishes

 

I'm all for free speech, John. But downright rudeness from a new poster who comments spitefully on a subject without reading around the subject is hard to stomache, in my very unimportant and humble view, which I am expressing - freely.

Don't know why you're asking me, but any professional who practices without pii is taking an unnecessary gamble. Why do you ask?

And please call me Bel, I think we are familiar enough now

 

Bel

Because I think he raises a very important issue, affecting all of us, on the validity of our insurance if we are practicing unregistered but using title.

So far none have answered, Mark was asked who he was insured with, no answer, and the assertion that SCP cover was not registration dependent has not been confirmed.

You may not like the manner of the post but it is valid.

You say without pii is an unnecessary gamble, what about responsibility to and protection of the patient ?

Regards

 

Go back and read my post the other night before you start making accusations. Would you like my policy number? Colour of today's underpants? Weight and texture of last turd? I'm all for sharing information relevant to professional issues but keep it to a level above Coronation Street please.

 

To me the crux of the matter is: were you insured to treat patients as a Podiatrist after you de-registered?
You state that you were open with everyone that you had de-registered. Looking at your website today you call yourself a ‘Podiatrist’ this is misleading to the public and at odds with your open letter. You have had months to change your website and tell your patients that you are not a HPC registered Podiatrist .Why have you not yet done this?
To paraphrase your argument. Non-Podiatrists can treat feet under non-protected titles therefore in protest I will de-register from the regulatory body of Podiatrists. If this is the case and you are genuine one would expect that you would have considered and safeguarded the position of your patients in regards to insurance.

So did you tell your insurers that you were using a protected title illegally? Or did you simply not tell your insurers thereby no doubt invalidating you indemnity insurance? Or did you insure yourself under one of the non-protected titles you seem to deplore so much? Or were you uninsured?
The Public are reassured that someone using a protected title will be insured and adhere to minimum standards of professional practice and maintain such things as on going CPD, infection control, life support training. As things stand by you are still using a title illegally, you are offering the public unsubstantiated reassurances.
So for the record are you, were you insured to treat patients. If you were not insured you are bringing the profession into disrepute and you should take down your open letter.

 

Coincidentally the BBC were running this story today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6435279.stm

 

John,

Anyone can obtain PII without being HCPC registered. Insurers require proof of qualification/scope of practice, not registration. I don`t see the relevance or validity of `the post` with regard to the subject in hand.

Bel

 

Bel

Because it may be that the insurance is invalidated if it were discovered you were illegally using a protected title.

Your car insurance is invalid if it's found that you don't have a current licence albeit that you have driving test pass certificate !

That's the relevance ! As no one has given a definitive answer I will try to find out.

Regards