HCPC Delays Under Fire: What the PSA’s Latest Review Means for Registrants

Last reviewed by Jonathan Meadows (Solicitor, Regulation Resolution) on 21 July 2026.

If you are a physiotherapist, paramedic, radiographer, operating department practitioner or any of the other professionals on the HCPC register and your fitness to practise case seems to have gone quiet for months at a time, the PSA’s latest review confirms it is not just you. The regulator’s persistent problem with timeliness is now one of the longest-running findings in the PSA’s oversight of the health and care regulators. This article sets out what the review found, why delay matters legally as well as personally, and how a well-advised registrant can respond.

What the PSA found

In its 2025/26 periodic review, the PSA concluded that the HCPC met 16 of the 18 Standards of Good Regulation, down from 17 the previous year, and only 3 of the 5 fitness to practise standards. Two findings stand out:

• Standard 15 — timeliness: the PSA found avoidable and/or unexplained significant delays in approximately 40% of the cases it audited.
• Standard 18 — support and communication: the HCPC was not consistently keeping the people involved in its cases — registrants and complainants alike — informed and supported, although improvements had begun.

The HCPC’s leadership acknowledged the findings: its chief executive said the regulator was determined to improve timeliness and ensure everyone involved feels informed and supported, while its Council chair pointed to outdated legislation and called for government reform. Context was also offered — concerns involve only around 0.5% of registrants, and applications have surged — but neither point softens the experience of the registrant whose case sits unexplained in a queue.

Why delay is a legal issue, not just a grievance

Prolonged investigation is not merely stressful; it can change the legal complexion of a case. Three doctrines matter:

1. Fairness of the hearing. Delay degrades evidence: memories fade, witnesses disperse, records are lost. Where that prejudice is real, it must be confronted — and in extreme cases it can found an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process.
2. Oppression. Even where a fair hearing remains possible, unconscionable delay that keeps a registrant under the shadow of proceedings for years can engage the second limb of the abuse jurisdiction — continuation that is unfair, oppressive, or offensive to the integrity of the process.
3. Impairment and sanction. Fitness to practise is assessed at the date of the hearing. Years of safe, unrestricted practice during the delay is powerful evidence against current impairment — and long delay, with its personal consequences, is a recognised mitigating factor at sanction.

A PSA finding that around 40% of audited cases involved avoidable or unexplained delay does not decide any individual case — but it is exactly the kind of systemic evidence that gives colour and credibility to a delay-based submission in yours. The same regulatory-oversight body drives sanction appeals across the sector, as our note on PSA v NMC and Tchampet shows.

Practical steps if your HCPC case is stalled

1. Build the chronology now. A precise, dated record of every step and every silence is the foundation of any delay argument — and of any complaint.
2. Ask, in writing, for updates and timescales. Standard 18 is about communication; a registrant who has asked and been left uninformed is in a stronger position than one who waited silently.
3. Preserve your evidence early. Statements, records and supportive witnesses should be captured while memories are fresh — delay hurts the defence too.
4. Document the impact. Health, employment and financial consequences of the delay are relevant to oppression and to sanction — keep the evidence.
5. Take advice on using the delay. Whether the right vehicle is a stay application, submissions on impairment, mitigation at sanction, or pressure for early resolution is a strategic judgement — and timing matters.

Frequently asked questions

How long does an HCPC investigation take?

Longer than it should, in a significant minority of cases: the PSA’s 2025/26 review found avoidable or unexplained significant delays in roughly 40% of the cases it examined. Complex cases can run for years, though many concerns are closed much earlier.

Can HCPC delay get my case thrown out?

In exceptional cases, yes — a panel can stay proceedings as an abuse of process where delay makes a fair hearing impossible or renders continuation oppressive. More commonly, delay supports arguments on current impairment and mitigation at sanction. Specialist advice is essential on which route fits your case.

What did the PSA say about the HCPC in its latest review?

That it met 16 of 18 Standards of Good Regulation (down from 17) and only 3 of 5 fitness to practise standards, with failings on timeliness (Standard 15) and on informing and supporting participants (Standard 18).

Does safe practice during the investigation help my case?

Yes. Because impairment is judged at the date of the hearing, a long period of safe, unrestricted practice during the delay is strong evidence that your fitness to practise is not currently impaired.

Should I complain to the HCPC about the delay in my case?

A measured, written request for updates and timescales is almost always sensible; a formal complaint may also be appropriate. Both create the record on which any later delay argument stands. Coordinate the approach with your representative so it supports, rather than complicates, your defence.