HCPC Fraud Conviction: No Case to Answer

A registered hearing aid dispenser faced an Investigating Committee Panel hearing before the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) on allegations arising from a criminal conviction. The registrant had been convicted in August 2022 of dishonestly making false statements to obtain benefit and had failed to inform the HCPC of this conviction. When renewing registration in May 2024, the registrant declared no change to good character, despite knowing of the conviction.

The registrant instructed Regulation Resolution Solicitors to act on their behalf. The defence strategy involved two key components: first, developing a comprehensive remediation plan demonstrating genuine insight, remorse, and rehabilitation; and second, preparing robust submissions on the legal test for dishonesty in the regulatory context, distinguishing between criminal dishonesty and the regulatory standard applicable in HCPC proceedings.

Regulation Resolution gathered character evidence from service users and professional colleagues, compiled CPD records demonstrating continued professional development, and worked with the registrant to produce a detailed reflective piece addressing the circumstances surrounding the offence, the registrant’s understanding of the impact of their actions, and the steps taken to prevent any repetition. The firm drafted comprehensive written submissions addressing the distinction between the criminal conviction and regulatory dishonesty, arguing that the registrant’s subsequent admissions, repayment of wrongly claimed amounts, guilty plea, and demonstrated insight and remorse were inconsistent with the dishonest concealment alleged in the regulatory context.

At the hearing in December 2025, the Panel considered all evidence on a paper-based exercise. The registrant admitted the conviction and the failure to disclose but denied dishonesty. The Panel accepted Regulation Resolution’s submissions on the legal test for dishonesty, concluding there was not a realistic prospect that dishonesty could be proved. Although the conviction and failures to disclose could amount to statutory grounds, the Panel found there was no realistic prospect of establishing impairment, noting the offence was committed several years prior, the registrant had engaged fully with authorities, and shown no repetition since.

The Panel determined that the registrant had no case to answer and was permitted to continue practising without restriction.

What this means if you’re facing similar allegations

A criminal conviction does not automatically translate into regulatory dishonesty or current impairment. Distinguishing the criminal standard from the regulatory test, and evidencing insight, remediation and the passage of time, can lead to a no-case-to-answer outcome. If a past conviction is being examined, the regulatory analysis is distinct and worth arguing carefully.

Facing a HCPC case? Learn more about our Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) defence services, or contact us for a free case evaluation.