Mr Vimal Vinod

Preliminary Matters

1.          The Panel has been convened to undertake the review of a substantive suspension order imposed in respect of the Registrant, Mr Vimal Vinod, an Occupational Therapist.  The review is being undertaken under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

Notice of hearing

2.          The Panel received an unredacted copy of an email dated 8 July 2025, that was sent to the Registrant.  It informed the Registrant of the date and time of this hearing, and also of the fact that the hearing would be conducted remotely by the use of Microsoft Teams.  The Panel was satisfied that this communication constituted a valid notice of hearing.
Proceeding in the Registrant’s absence

3.          The Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence.  The Presenting Officer informed the Panel that the last communication from the Registrant was an email he sent on 28 March 2022.  In that email he wrote, “This is to inform you that I am not currently employed as an Occupational therapist in the UK and I have returned back to my home country.”  There was no engagement by the Registrant in either the final hearing or the review of the Suspension Order on 21 August 2024.  In relation to the present hearing, the Registrant has been sent six communications.  Following the notice of hearing sent on 8 July 2025, the HCPC Case Manager dealing with the Registrant’s case emailed him on 15 July 2025, 23 July 2025 and 28 July 2025.  Furthermore, the Hearings Officer emailed the Registrant earlier in the present week, one to ask if he would be attending the hearing, the other to send him the link to join the virtual hearing.

4.          Having taken the advice of the Legal Assessor and heeded the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”, the Panel concluded that the hearing should proceed.  The reasons for that decision were as follows:

·       A review of the current Suspension Order is not only a mandatory requirement, but one that must be undertaken before the current Order expires.  It follows that a hearing must be held before 15 September 2025.
·       It is clear that the Registrant has long since ceased to engage in this fitness to practise process.  The Panel can reach no conclusion other than that he has voluntarily absented himself from this hearing.  There are no grounds on which the Panel could conclude that there is any likelihood that the Registrant would participate in a review hearing at any stage.
·       For these reasons the Panel concluded that the public interest required the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

5.          The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist registered with the HCPC.

6.          At the time of the allegations underpinning these fitness to practise issues, the Registrant was a Band 5 Occupational Therapist at Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”), where he was employed between 15 March 2021 and 5 October 2021. As a newly qualified Occupational Therapist, he started in post on a probationary period of six months.

7.          When the Registrant first joined the Trust in March 2021, he was placed at Hull Royal Infirmary, a medical trauma-based unit with very complex discharge planning.

8.          In early April 2021 until mid-August 2021, the Registrant was moved to the Orthopaedic Department at the University of Hull Teaching Hospital, where he worked under the supervision of a Senior Occupational Therapist.

9.          On 12 August 2021, at the end of the six-month probationary period, a final probation meeting was held in accordance with the Trust’s Probation Policy. At that meeting it was agreed to extend the Registrant’s probation period by three months to give him more time to meet the required objectives of probation.

10.       Following the probationary meeting, the Registrant was moved to the Cardiology Department, where he worked under the supervision of another Senior Occupational Therapist.

11.       On 23 September 2021, due to a lack of progress, the Registrant was written to and advised that his final review meeting had been brought forward to 5 October 2021.

12.       For the final weeks of his employment, the Registrant worked under the supervision of another practitioner, predominantly in the Cardiology Department.

13.       On 5 October 2021, at the final probation review meeting, it was concluded that the Registrant was still failing to meet the expectations and there were concerns about his performance and capability. The Registrant was informed by the Therapy Manager at the Trust that she would be making a referral to a panel hearing to decide in respect of the Registrant’s employment. The Registrant did not wish to go to panel and resigned from his post.

14.       On 3 November 2021, the HCPC received a referral from the Trust in relation to the Registrant’s competence alleging that the Registrant did not perform to the standard expected of a Band 5 Occupational Therapist.

15.       The final hearing of the HCPC’s allegations against the Registrant took place between 14 and 18 August 2023.  The Registrant did not attend the hearing, and the panel recorded the fact that he had not engaged with the HCPC since he wrote the email on 28 March 2022, to which reference is made in paragraph 3 above.  The panel decided that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.  The HCPC called four witnesses to give evidence, three Occupational Therapists and a Physiotherapist, all of whom had had contact with the Registrant during the period of his employment.

16.       The panel found that all of the factual particulars were proven, and that they demonstrated the standard of the Registrant’s professional performance by reference to a fair sample of his work.  It also found that that, notwithstanding the acceptance by HCPC witnesses that the Registrant was academically able and had a good knowledge of Occupational Therapy, the standard of his performance was such that the statutory ground of lack of competence was made out.  When the panel considered the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise, it decided that the absence of any information from the Registrant from which it could be concluded that past deficiencies had been addressed, necessarily meant that, by reference to the personal component, his fitness to practise was impaired.  It also decided that considerations of public confidence required the same finding to be made in relation to the public component.

17.       When it addressed the issue of sanction, it rejected both a caution order or conditions of practice as appropriate outcomes.  It decided that suspension was both appropriate and proportionate, and made a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.  The panel concluded its written determination with this paragraph:
“The Panel bore in mind that this Suspension Order will be reviewed shortly before its expiry to determine what, if any, further action is required. Whilst not binding, the Panel was of the view that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by the following:

a) The Registrant’s engagement in the process;

b) A demonstration of the Registrant’s commitment to the Occupational Therapy profession and how he may seek to resolve his lack of competence;

c) Evidence that the Registrant has reflected on his period of practice in the United Kingdom;

d) Evidence of any practical, in-person courses or training in the areas of concern; for example, in moving and handling.”

18.       The Suspension Order imposed by the final hearing panel was reviewed on 21 August 2024.  Again, the Registrant did not attend that hearing and he was not represented at it, and the review hearing proceeded in his absence.  Noting that the Registrant had not accepted the advice of the final hearing panel as to information that he might consider providing for the purposes of the review, the reviewing panel stated that there was no new information before it which would indicate that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired on the personal component.  Furthermore, in circumstances where the Registrant had: (i) failed to engage with the regulatory process (ii) failed to provide any evidence of insight or of steps taken to remedy his lack of competence, and (iii) where, as a result, patients remained at risk of harm, it was satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the public component.  The reviewing panel decided that a further period of suspension for 12 months should be ordered.  That panel concluded its written determination giving the Registrant the same advice for the purposes of the present review that the final hearing panel had provided for the initial review.

19.       The Suspension Order imposed by the final hearing panel had effect from 15 September 2023.  The further period of suspension decided upon by the reviewing panel on 21 August 2024, took effect upon the expiry of the initial period.  Both periods of suspension were for 12 months.  It follows that the Order currently being reviewed will expire on 15 September 2025.
Submissions to the Panel

20.       On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer made submissions as to the proper approach to the consideration of the review and the powers available to the Panel.  These submissions accorded with the approach explained below and followed by the Panel.  She informed the Panel that there had been no further fitness to practise issues that had arisen with regard to the Registrant, but she also submitted that he had not discharged the evidential burden of demonstrating that the shortcomings identified by the final hearing panel had been addressed.  The Presenting Officer accepted that the total period of suspension to date was not sufficiently long for the present Panel to have jurisdiction to make a striking off order, but submitted that, were that not the case, the HCPC’s submission would be that the time had come to make a striking off order.  The submission made on behalf of the HCPC was that a further short period of suspension should be ordered so that when the next review is undertaken, the panel conducting that review will have jurisdiction to make a striking off order.  A period of four months was suggested as the appropriate length of the order.

21.       No submissions were made by or on behalf of the Registrant.

Decision

22.       The Panel accepted the advice it received and followed the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”.  What a panel undertaking a review of a substantive sanction order is required to do can be summarised as follows:

·       The reviewing panel is obliged to accept as settled the finding of facts made by the final hearing panel and also their decision that the facts found proved demonstrated a lack of competence.

·       The task of the present Panel is to decide whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, and, if it is, whether the existing order or some other order needs to be in place upon the expiry of the existing order.

·       Included in the issues to be considered are those listed in paragraph 12 of the Practice Note.  The reviewing panel is required to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment have been sufficiently addressed.  In reaching its decision, it is appropriate for the reviewing panel to take the view that the registrant carries the persuasive burden of demonstrating that matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

·       If the reviewing panel is of the view that a registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and that a further order is required upon the expiry of the existing order, then ordinary sanction principles apply.  The decision should be made by following the guidance contained in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy.  It is necessary that any further order decided upon should satisfy the requirement that it represents a proportionate response.

·       A specific feature of the present case that must be explained arises from the fact that the finding of the final hearing panel was one of lack of competence.  Article 29(6) of the Health Professions Order 2001, provides that a striking off order may not be made in respect of a finding of lack of competence, “unless the person concerned has been continuously suspended, or subject to a conditions of practice order, for a period of no less than two years immediately preceding the date of the decision of the Committee to make such an order.”

The Panel confirms that in reaching its decision it has applied these principles.

23.       The Panel began by deciding whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired.  The conclusion of the Panel was that it is.  The shortcomings amounting to a lack of competence were clearly identified by the final hearing panel in August 2023, and there has been no information provided by the Registrant to suggest that he has remediated any of the areas identified.  The result of that finding is that, were he to be able to return to unrestricted practice, he would present a risk to service users.  That risk, particularly as it would exist in the context of non-engagement with the professional regulator, would be a matter of considerable concern to informed and fair-minded members of the public.  The result of these findings is that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired in respect of both the personal and public components.

24.       The finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired meant that it was necessary for the Panel to decide whether a further sanction is required when the present period of suspension ends on 15 September 2025.  To decide that issue, the Panel considered the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy.

25.       The Panel reviewed the available sanctions starting with the least restrictive.  A caution order would not be appropriate as it would not provide any restriction that would mitigate against the risk of future service user harm.  A conditions of practice order would not appropriate, not least because of the lack of engagement on the part of the Registrant.  The Panel therefore necessarily arrived at consideration of a further period of suspension.

26.       The rationale for the restriction on the imposition of a striking off order in cases of lack of competence is clear; when the issue is lack of competence, it is only appropriate that the practitioner concerned should have the opportunity to address the shortcomings that have been identified, and, accordingly, if the risks are sufficiently serious it is appropriate that the most restrictive sanction that can be imposed is suspension to afford an opportunity for the practitioner to take steps to remediate their deficiencies.  Equally, it is recognised by Article 29(6) of the 2001 Order that a time can come when it can be decided that a sufficiently long period has been provided for remediation to be undertaken.  The view of the present Panel is that it is clear that the Registrant does not intend to engage with the HCPC, let alone, demonstrate that he should be permitted to return to unrestricted practice.  The terms of Article 29(6) do not permit a striking off order to be made today.  The Panel’s conclusion is that a further short period of suspension should be ordered so that the next reviewing panel will have the jurisdiction to make a striking off order.

27.       As has already been stated, the Panel does not believe that the Registrant will be minded to demonstrate that he should be permitted to return to unrestricted practice.  The Panel does not seek to bind the future reviewing panel in any respect. However, if the Registrant has any residual intention of doing so, he would be well advised to consider that the future reviewing panel will consider the guidance contained in paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy and may decide that a striking off order should be made.  If the Registrant decides to engage in the process he may wish to consider the guidance reproduced in paragraph 17 above that was provided by both the final hearing panel and the first reviewing panel.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Vimal Vinod for a further period of 4 months on the expiry of the existing Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 15 September 2025.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 15 January 2026.

History of Hearings for Mr Vimal Vinod