Would you report, and who to??

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I have some concerns about a practitioner working in my locality.I had been working for the person in question for some time until our working relationship came to a very abrupt end quite recently.

I have found out that they are not registered with either the HCPC, SCPod or any other regulatory body for that matter. They have been using the professional status of 'employees' to advertise the business as HCPC registered , yet 'employees' are told they are self employed so are not entitled to any sick pay or holiday pay.

I have learned from a reliable source reason they are not registered is because they were struck off a number of years ago for an incident with a minor!!! Yet this person still treats minors and vulnerable adults, blatantly rips off elderly customers and is generally rude. Frankly, for the amount they charge, they have no business being rude. Another favorite is to use the scalpel in a slashing motion as if threatening to cut off children's feet- I fail to see how this is even remotely funny!!!
Their advertizing claims to use the "latest laser technology" and "all instruments sterilized" yet they have no laser, and out of 5 practices only one has access to an autoclave. The same set of instruments stay at each practice and are left to sit in the same solution throughout the clinical session. (I have my own equipment and autoclave before you ask as I worked solo!) I am thankful to be disassociated of this crooked individual, but my concerns lay with the fact that they are still treating young children, teenagers and elderly folk who probably dont know any better.

Who would be able to investigate this practice?? Something needs to be done for sure

 

So what prevents you, as an anonymous poster, from naming this unscrupulous practice?

 

Professionalism I hope.

Bill

PS How about contacting the HPC, the police and your local news paper?

 

Really? So would you consider the OP as 'professional'? Maybe I'm becoming cynical in my middle age.

 

Beaniepod,
You have made some very serious allegations against a practitioner that you used to work with. Unless you can substantiate what you claim I would suggest, respectfully, you keep quiet.
If you did decide to involve the HCPC, one of the questions they might ask would be, "if conditions were as bad as you claim, why did you ever decide to enter into a working relationship with them? "
You say

I am surprised you did not check out their HCPC registration before you took up a position with them?

The SC&P is not a regulatory body.

I have been told by the HCPC that if a practice has an HCPC Registarnt working on the premises than they can claim that the practice is "HCPC Registered". However, under Trading Standards legislation it should be made clear to potential clients which practitioner is a Chiropodist/Podiatrist and which are not.

Perhaps I am being a bit cynical, but it seems to me that your complaint arises from the fact that your arrangement was terminated, not out of a concern for professional standards.

Podess

 

You and me both! And it gets worse before (if) it gets better.

Bill

PS I try not to think of it as cynical but as more aware of and ultimately accepting of the human condition. I rant more but if push came to shove I would be less harsh and final in my judgement, I think? Hmmm then again maybe not. In reality I don't want to be tested.

 

Another question they most certainly will ask is - "who are you?".
Anonymous postings by someone having a go at someone or something are nothing new. They are neither interesting nor informative to the vast majority of people reading posts on here.
We may be more interested if you identified yourself, and the person in question.........

My advice is stop moaning on this forum. If you have a grouse take it to the HCPC.

 

David H,
You said

Why? The principles are the same.

I don't think this person has grounds for a complaint and to me it doesn't matter whether or not we know who the protagonists are, it would not change my opinion. I don't see how it would change your opinion, so maybe you would like to enlighten us?

Podess

 

Typical!!
Podiatrists unsupportive of one another until the end, some act like internet trolls!
Beanie ... at least you want to take things further and have had the guts to stand up and say something.
Ignore the unprofessional gutless half wits.
hope you get the situation sorted.

 

Write to the HCPC with your concerns, but they will tell you that they cannot act as they don't regulate the individual you describe, having previously struck him off. You might then suggest that the public are even more at risk now as he is able to practise unhindered and without any scrutiny, but they will tell you that as he is no longer a registrant they have no legal basis in which to intervene or investigate further. You will then have to decide whether this is acceptable to you and if not, what do you intend doing about it?

You will, of course, have to give your name and registration details to the HCPC if you file a complaint and I think that if you did likewise before posting on Pod Arena, then your comments would have much greater authority in future.

Best wishes

 

You've made six posts in all since 2010.
You posted once about getting business into your Practice, a couple of times about selling an autoclave, and once about selling your Practice.

Do you mind terribly if I don't take you at all seriously?

 

David the bore.
Stalking me by an chance? ( weirdo)
Strangely unlike you, and many other internet trolls, I tend not to spend all my free time on "Podiatry Forums" ! shock. Do you go train spotting too?
Now go away as I am certain that this forum would be better off without the likes of you. Bore off or I will have to call the authorities.

Beanie I apologise for having to add this on your thread, hope you have managed to get some sensible advice and not nasty comments like above. x

 

Wish I had the `guts` to name-call under a pseudonym/anon posting...



Beaniepod,

Please accept my sincere apologies if my previous postings came across as a tad harsh. My (weak) excuse is that I am irritable with the remains of a cold. Sorry.

Mark has highlighted the seriousness of previously registered pods who have been `struck off` the HCPC register as unfit to practice, yet continue to do so, posing a very real threat to the unsuspecting public. Your experience (assuming it is as you state, which is difficult to substantiate as you do not name the practitioner) is yet another example that could be utilised to demonstrate the flaws in current legislation. As a new poster I can appreciate your reluctance to identify yourself. However, if what you state is true then please do consider contacting the HCPC with your concerns and when they reply with the inevitable `we can`t regulate the unregulated` then can I suggest you highlight the ineffecftiveness of their `authority` and maybe contact the professional body and indemnity insurers of the practitioner in question and ask why they are prepared to support someone who has been found unfit to practice and is a threat to the public.

Bel

 

Nope, he does what anyone else would do - he considers your words in context of what you have previously written. It makes it much easier to spot the genuine posters from the growl and spit brigade. And the weirdos.

 

Bel,
Beaniepod has already said that,

so as far as I can see they wasting their time with this one.

I know this because I reported a similar practitioner years ago (practising above grubby second-hand shop, carpet on floor, no autoclave etc) and I was told that as the HPC - as it was then - had no power to enter premises, I needed to provide proof.

Beanipod, I am sorry to talk about you as if you were not here.
Can you prove they are practising without insurance?

Please be very careful what you say as some practitioners are very litigation conscious.

Podess

 

Actually, Podess, Catfoot, Dido or whatever it is that you are calling yourself these days, Beaniepod does not say they are practicing "without insurance". Your quote clearly states that they are not regulated.

If professional bodies and more importantly, insurance companies, refused to provide indemnity cover for anyone struck off, then at least lawful action could be taken personally against such practitioners who remain a threat to the public.

 

Please be very careful about what you call me, and where.

Brecon, where sje practices/used to practice, is small garrison town of around 10,000 population. I know because when I moved to Wales I considered doing some work there.
It took me around two hours telephone/footslogging research to find out that no Practice could survive there for very long. Two chiropodists (I spoke to one, I presume you are the lady I didn't speak to) and an osteopath who also fitted orthotics convinced me that Brecon really didn't need any more chiropodists/FHPs/podiatrists.

Generally we are pretty supportive of new posters and people asking for help on here.
Anonymous posts attract less support than those who put their name to posts.
Those who simply ask for help all the time without contributing anything useful, or make stupid personal comments tend to attract no support at all.

 

It is apparent to me that there is a surfeit of paranoia on this site coupled with a dearth of common sense.

In order to redress the balance I will reconsider Beaniepod's original question. Again Beaniepod, I apologise for talking about you and not to you.

The areas of concern were ;

and this is not actionable by the HCPC.

This is a very serious allegation to make about someone. If this information is correct then there will be an HCPC hearing about this in the Public Domain. Concerns could be raised with the HCPC but they do not regulate non-registrants. Even if this person was put on the Sex Offenders Register they may not be barred from working with children. The Police/Social Services will be able to say whether or not this person is a risk to children and vulnerable adults and advice could be sought from them. I find it hard to believe that the various Child Protection agencies are not aware of this person's activities. I am sure they would have acted if they thought there was an issue.

There has been mention of scaring chidren by displaying a scalpel in a threatening manner. If this is correct it could be construed as "unprofessional behaviour". However, if the practitioner is not regulated or a member of any professional body then nothing can be done via that route. I am suprised that the parents of these children have not made a complaint if they felt that their child was being intimidated? Maybe they have "voted with their feet" and gone elsewhere?

The first complaint could be reported to the Trading Standards Dept of the local Council or even to the Advertising Standards Authority. However, in the case of ASA the complainant will be named in any report that is produced, and this may or may not be a problem.

The second complaint is not valid as there is no law that says the use of an autoclave is mandatory. All the Podiatry bodies I know of recommend that their members use an autoclave as "Best Practice", but as this practioner has no such membership then this does not apply.

If it could be proved that this practitioner is practising without insurance, then there might to be a case to put before the local Trading Standards Dept on the grounds that the public were being put at risk. (this is why I raised that concept) However, it is very difficult to prove a negative and I have litle confidence in the sucess of this.

To sje - you have berated me for not supporting a fellow Pod. If you read my answer you will see why I advised Beaniepod as I did.

To Beanipod - what your posting very clearly shows is the loopholes in current legislation. It is unfortunate that nothing we can do can close these.
I would suggest that you thank your Lucky Stars you are no longer working with this person and set up in practice yourself. If the other practitioner's standards are as poor as you say then you should have no difficulty in attracting clients.

regards


Podess

 

You completely miss the point.
An anonymous poster has made an allegation about another anonymous person.
That is all.

We already know what the HCPC can and cannot do.
We already know about Trading Standards, Insurance, and all the other stuff.

Speaking personally, I might be mildly interested if the OP identified himself/herself and outlined their next course of action.

 

I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong, but you do not have to have insurance to practice.

stupid yes but not illegal.

I am off course talking about unregulated, who do not belong to a professional body

 

OK, You`re wrong.

The majority of `unregulated` DO have insurance. You don`t have to belong to a professional body to obtain professional indemnity insurance.

 

I'd start with the trading standards and go from there.

 

DavidH,
With respect DavidH, I think it is you who has missed the point. When I said,

I was not alluding to Beaniepod.

It would be a relatively simple matter to find out the name of this (apparently) errant practitioner by accessing the HCPC hearings and see who has been struck off for a sexual misdemeanor.

Suzannethefoot, you say,

which looks like the only option, but I don't think it will be very effective.

Podess

 

Blinda

Do you mean what you said ? The proposition that 'you do not need insurance to practice' is correct, applied to the unregistered and not subject to any professional bodies rules. The fact that some DO have insurance cover is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauline burrell-saward
I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong, but you do not have to have insurance to practice. Stupid yes but not illegal.
I am off course talking about unregulated, who do not belong to a professional body

Blinda: OK, You`re wrong. The majority of `unregulated` DO have insurance. You don`t have to belong to a professional body to obtain professional indemnity insurance.

 

Yes, John. I meant exactly what I said; the majority of, not "some", unregulated practitioners, ie FHPs, FCAs & of course those who have CHOSEN to re-regulate, do carry professional indemnity insurance. This is very relevant to Pauline`s post, which implied that an unregulated practitioner who does not belong to a professional body, would not bother with obtaining indemnity insurance.

Professional bodies can negotiate a deal with insurers and `generously` pass on that group discount to their members (regulated or not). However, many practitioners (regulated or not) are choosing to cut out the middle man and obtain their professional indemnity directly from insurance providers.

 

OK Blinda, you meant what you said but were wrong in your reply to Pauline BS, who was correct when she said insurance was not a legal requirement.

 

Ok, John. Pauline was correct in stating that `insurance is not a legal requirement`, but she was incorrect to infer that this applied soley to the `unregulated`.

 

Blinda, you`ve really got me confused now, so when you say 'she was incorrect to infer that this applied soley (solely) to the `unregulated`; you mean it applies to all ?

ie. that to practice, insurance is not a required for HPC registration or membership of the SCP.

 

That is indeed the current position. It was the only question the magistrate asked of the prosecution last week - which had little to do with PoT - and was confirmed by the HCPC barrister. It is not a legal requirement to hold indemnity insurance for either the registered or unregistered practitioner. Bel is quite correct in her replies.

 

No, John. That is not what I am saying at all, although Mark`s contribution adds clarity to your query, ie; whether regulated practitioners are required to hold insurance. I was merely taking up Pauline`s offer to be corrected when she made 2 points;

1) It is not a legal requirement to have insurance - True
2) She was "off course talking about unregulated, who do not belong to a professional body"- False

You cannot and should not assume that unregulated and/or those not members of a professional body are uninsured, was my point.

Sorry to have caused confusion, John (and thanks for the typo correction ).

Cheers,
Bel

 

Gosh talk about picking over every dot !

I stand corrected that regulated do not have to be insured,however I did not mean to suggest that the unregulated do not have insurance, off course the majority do.

What I was saying was there is no legal requirement to be insured, however if anyone belongs to a professional body it is a requirement that they are insured( usually by the same professional body)

Does that make sense? Oh I do hope so.

By the way Mark, how did your sentencing conclude??

 

Thanks for the clarification, Pauline!.....although, (call me Pete the Pedant, if you will) when I was a member of the Institute of Chiropodists & Podiatrsits Professional body, I did not hold insurance with them, nor with their recommended providers.

Cheers,
Bel

 

Mark

I have to query this when you say:

'confirmed by the HCPC barrister. It is not a legal requirement to hold indemnity insurance for either the registered or unregistered practitioner'.

What would the HCPC do if they discovered you were practicing without insurance cover ? Would they not strike you off, if so, that would constitute a 'legal requirement'.

 

ps. taken from the HCPC website:

'You are now required to make sure that you have appropriate professional indemnity arrangements in place as a condition of your registration with us. Many registrants will already meet this requirement because they will be indemnified by their employer and/or because they hold separate professional indemnity insurance obtained through their professional body or directly from an insurer'.

 

John:

I stopped believing what the HCPC claimed on their website some years ago when this statement was made - and is clearly inaccurate.:

I can only recount what the barrister said when asked by the magistrate - that there may be plans to make PII a legal requirement in the future, but that is not the case presently. I'm sure if I am mistaken, Bel or Linda will correct me.

Mark

 

Mark

Could their barrister be wrong ?

either way it doesn`t answer my question: What would the HCPC do if they discovered you were practicing without insurance cover ? Would they not strike you off, if so, that would constitute a 'legal requirement'.

ps. I see there publicity machine is at work:

http://www.hpc-uk.org/mediaandevents/pressreleases/index.asp?id=706

 

As I understand it - the proposal will only affect registrants and there is no current legal requirement for either registrants or non registrants to hold PII. The website is inaccurate. The HCPC's legal team were in court and concurred with the barrister.

 

Mark Russell said:
'As I understand it - the proposal will only affect registrants and there is no current legal requirement for either registrants or non registrants to hold PII. The website is inaccurate. The HCPC's legal team were in court and concurred with the barrister.'



Of course the non-registrants are irrelevant to this issue but therefore we can all save ourselves a lot of money by not insuring and if we are brought before the HCPC our defence is 'Mark Russell said it was ok' !

 

No mistake, Mark. Linda and I raised our eyebrows at this statement too.

Mark didn`t say "it was ok". The barrister, (who conferred with the HCPC representatives) clearly confirmed that Indemnity Insurance is NOT a legal requirement.

Dunno about you, John. But I certainly wouldn`t be in a position to fund a private prosecution made against me for professional negligence.

 

Blinda

Certainly i wouldn't put myself in that position but if I were I wouldn't rely on heresay as a defence; I'd quote Mark. Not that that would be much help as he's been found guilty of attempting to deceive !

Joking apart, I can confirm that the HCPC will be making PII a condition of registration during 2014.