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