Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Podiatry Title

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by David J 12345, Jan 20, 2017.

  1. David J 12345

    David J 12345 Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I'm not too sure if it has been done to death but does anyone know what happened in the Mark Russel and HCPC case? I'm interested if the SCPOD had any input to this ( if he was in fact a member?). I just looking at the HCPC removal from the posts and while I have to say there are some justification in their outcomes there appears to be punative measure over common sense. Interestly can we take action against spurious and vindictive complaints? I'm not sure Medics can but their insurers certainly have to reclaim expenses etc.
    Thanks
     
  2. blinda

    blinda MVP

    He lost his appeal at great cost to all. The HCPC legal costs amounted to over £180,000 (plus VAT) - just to secure the prosecution of an honest and principled colleague.

    The Society stood by, silently. When asked to provide a simple statement on their understanding of what the "with intent to deceive" addendum in the legislation means for the profession, they refused. Even though Mark is a former member of Council and this information could have greatly influenced the final judgement. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Society issued a personal and damning press release about Mark. Nice.

    The High Court Judge admitted that titles are not`protected`, they are merely `designated`. Thus, the HCPC has deliberately misled all the professions it regulates by claiming to protect titles. Time and again, it was confirmed that anyone with a qualification in any of the designated titles can use their title so long as they make it abundantly clear that they are not HCPC registered.

    You can read a copy of the verdict here; http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=106156
     
  3. Hello David

    The outcome of the case in relation to your enquiry was that we discovered through the evidence that the HCPC have deliberately concealed a crucial part of the legislation which enables anyone with a podiatry or chiropody qualification to use a professional title without being registered with the regulator. That won't make a great deal of difference to the NHS employee who needs to be registered to work in the state sector - so they will still have to face the highly flawed and punitive FtP process if they have been referred by work.

    Private practitioners don't need to be registered with the HCPC should they choose not to - and they can still call themselves a chiropodist or podiatrist, providing they have a qualification as above - and don't mislead the public into thinking that are registered with the HCPC. That is the defacto legal position.

    Do I think we should be regulated and registered? Yes.

    Do I think the HCPC are the best agency to provide statutory regulation? Absolutely not.

    Is the FtP process fair and reasonable? No. The role of the regulator when a complaint is received is to assess the evidence with a view to proving the allegations. It is not about establishing fact. The FtP panel only judge the evidence that is put before them by the HCPC. Where the HCPC hold evidence that contradicts the allegation, they are not obliged to use that evidence or disclose it to the registrant. The majority of registrants that attend FtP hearings without legal representation (and sometimes with) think they are there to establish the "truth".They are not; they are there as a sacrificial goat - another performance indicator marker for the HCPC to take to the PSA and government at the end of the year and tell them what a wonderful job they're doing. You're worth much more to the HCPC than just a measly £79/year or whatever they extract from you them days..

    The HCPC don't give a rat's arse if the complaint is malicious or vexatious. Complaints are only logged as proceed to investigation or not. If a complaint is rejected it is only because there is insufficient evidence to secure a guilty verdict - it doesn't matter that the complaint might obviously be a pack of lies; it is simply recorded as "not for investigation or hearing". In some cases that have proceeded to formal hearings, and where the evidence provided by the registrant has proved conclusively that the complaint was vexatious and malicious, the HCPC has done absolutely nothing about it.

    You would think a responsible regulator would refer malicious complainants to the police - after all they waste tremendous resources and time, not to say the damage it can do to the registrant, emotionally and financially when faced with spurious allegations. But they don't, because quite simply they don't give a fuck about you, the registrant, other than your yearly contribution to their coffers and the potential for you to put another notch in their belt, should you be be unfortunate enough to have a complaint lodged against you.

    Apart from that aspect, the regulator has lied to all the professions, registrants and the public. If you are a private practitioner that has held registration with the HCPC since it was formed in 2003 you will likely have a claim against them for fraudulent misrepresentation as they have told you that you MUST be registered with them to use your professional title. That's the porky.

    I'm not sure what the total fees individual registrants will have paid to the HCPC over the last 14 years, but it must be around £1,000 each. The HCPC has 389,000 registrant members - and at least half of them will have a claim. That's a lotta dosh - and even more than the Society might have to pay out too.

    It shouldn't surprise, David. It was the same with the government and the Brexit hearing at the supreme court. What was really important about the case wasn't the matter at hand - as fascinating as it was. Instead we discovered that another piece of legislation - the Scotland Act - has been written is such a way that it negates any sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament, directly contradicting the government's stated position on devolved powers. Just as the HCPC has done to you. It was just coincidental that it was another court case on a seemingly unrelated matter that exposed it. Not the best piece of forward planning by the regulator, but I suppose when you have lied to such an extent, you must do everything you can to conceal it, whatever the cost...

    Lying has become the norm in government, its agencies and many of the institutions - including the HCPC and regrettably the Society of C&P too. You can never trust liars plain and simple and we really should support any organisation that has a proven track record in that department.

    Mark
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
Loading...

Share This Page