Vimal Vinod

Preliminary matters

Service

1. The Panel was informed by the Hearings Officer that notice of this hearing (the Notice) was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 18 November 2025.

2. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that the Notice had been served in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules).

Proceeding in the Registrant’s absence

3. The Registrant was not present or represented at this hearing and had not sent any written representations for consideration by the Panel.

4. The Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to proceed to review this Substantive Order in the Registrant’s absence pursuant to Rule 11.

5. The Presenting Officer informed the Panel that the last communication from the Registrant was an email dated 28 March 2022 in which he stated, “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 two reviews of the Suspension Order on 21 August 2024 and 7 August 2025. In relation to the present hearing, the Registrant has been sent several communications in October and November 2025. Furthermore, the HCPC emailed the Registrant on 9 December 2025 to ask if he would be attending this review hearing. No response had been received from him following any of these communications.

6. The Presenting Officer submitted that there was nothing to suggest that the Registrant would attend on a future date if the hearing today were adjourned. She reminded the Panel that this was a statutory review of a Suspension Order due to expire on 15 January 2026 and submitted that there was a strong public interest in proceeding with the hearing today, so that it should not expire whilst there remain serious concerns about the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

7. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel’s discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence under the provisions of Rule 11 is one that should be exercised with the utmost care and caution. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel of the requirement, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, that substantive orders must be reviewed before they expire. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the factors set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

8. In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to the overall interests of justice and fairness to all parties. The Panel considered the Registrant’s lack of engagement with his HCPC proceedings to date and bore in mind that he had not engaged at all during his Final Hearing in August 2023. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had chosen not to attend the hearing today and it had no reason to believe that an adjournment would result in the Registrant’s attendance at some future date. It further recognised the strong public interest in conducting a mandatory review of the Substantive Order currently in place.

9. Accordingly, having weighed the interests of the Registrant with those of the HCPC and the strong public interest in an expeditious disposal of this hearing, the Panel determined that it was fair to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Without a review, the Suspension Order will expire on 15 January 2026. In the Panel’s judgment, it was in the public interest that a decision be made at this time as to whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. Moreover, it was in the Registrant’s own interests that decisions be made as to whether any further order is needed in respect of his registration.

Background

10. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Occupational Therapist.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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.

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

18. 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 proceed and resigned from his post.

19. 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 standards expected of a Band 5 Occupational Therapist.

20. 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 5 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.”

First review panel – 21 August 2024

23. The panel at the first review hearing conducted its review in the absence of the Registrant. 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 by giving the Registrant the same advice for the purposes of the second review that the final hearing panel had provided for the initial review.

Second review panel – 7 August 2025

24. The second review panel conducted a review on 7 August 2025. Again, the Registrant did not attend or submit any written representations. The Panel was informed that there had been no contact with the Registrant since March 2022.

25. The second review panel set out in its determination that it found the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and stated:

“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.”

26. That panel considered that, in light of the ongoing concerns around public protection, a caution order would not be appropriate; nor would a conditions of practice order, “not least because of the lack of engagement on the part of the Registrant.” The Panel therefore imposed a further 4-month period of suspension.

27. The second review panel stressed the importance of the Registrant complying with previous panels’ suggestions on the steps required to demonstrate remediation.

28. The second review panel warned the Registrant that his continued lack of engagement and his failure to comply with recommendations might lead to a striking off order.

Review of the Substantive Suspension Order

29. This is the third review of the Suspension Order initially imposed on 18 August 2023.

30. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the persuasive burden rested on the Registrant at this review.

31. The Presenting Officer submitted that this case has not moved forward at all since the last review hearing, or indeed since the Final Hearing in 2023. There has been no engagement from the Registrant and no evidence of his compliance with the recommendations made to him by the previous panels. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise continues to be impaired on both the personal and public components.

32. Although acknowledging that a decision on sanction was a matter for this Panel’s judgement, the Presenting Officer submitted that a further extension of the Suspension Order would serve no useful purpose, in light of the lack of engagement from the Registrant throughout his regulatory proceedings, and that a Striking-Off order was appropriate in this case. The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, specifically paragraph 131, which provides that a striking off order is likely to be appropriate where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously and has failed to address a lack of competence, or is unwilling to resolve matters.

Panel’s Decision

33. This Panel considered the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders” in carrying out its comprehensive reconsideration of the Suspension Order in light of the current circumstances. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that, in practical terms, there was a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired and that all the shortcomings which led to the original finding of impairment have been “sufficiently addressed” (Abrahaem v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin)).

34. The Panel bore in mind that it must first decide if a finding of current impairment is necessary to protect the public from any risk of harm (assessing the extent of that current or future risk), maintain public confidence in the profession, or to declare and uphold the proper standards of conduct or behaviour. This is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgment and is essentially a risk assessment in light of all the information before the Panel today. In considering the issue of impairment, the Legal Assessor emphasised that the panel should take into account the principles set out in the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin): is the conduct capable of remedy; is there now evidence of appropriate and sufficient remediation; and is it reassured that the risk of similar deficiencies being repeated is “highly unlikely”?

35. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s established lack of competence was serious and wide ranging and involved serious breaches of his professional standards. There has been no meaningful engagement from the Registrant throughout his regulatory proceedings with the HCPC, including prior to, during and following the Final Hearing in 2023. There has been no evidence that the concerns underpinning the Registrant’s impaired fitness to practise have been sufficiently addressed. On the evidence before the Panel, the Registrant has not demonstrated any appreciation or understanding of the gravity of the concerns identified and, as such, the Panel was not reassured that it was highly unlikely that there would be a repetition of such failings on the Registrant’s part. The Panel considered that there was no evidence of insight from the Registrant into his failings and in relation to the damage that this has had or might have on the reputation of his profession. It therefore concluded that the Registrant has not, on the personal component, discharged the burden of persuasion and has not demonstrated that he is fit to return to unrestricted practice.

36. The Panel also considered the wider public interest in the case. In the absence of remediation, members of the public would be concerned if such a Registrant, who (to the Panel’s knowledge) has not practised in the UK since he left the Trust in October 2021, and who has demonstrated no insight or evidence of remediation, were able to practise without restriction. In these circumstances, the Panel was of the view that the need to uphold confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession and the HCPC would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. The Registrant is not safe to practise unrestricted given his current impairment and the public interest requires that he should not be in a position to practise unrestricted.

37. The Panel next considered the issue of sanction and paid careful attention to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel was aware that sanction is a matter for its own professional judgement. It has borne in mind that any sanction must be proportionate and that the primary purpose of sanction is protection of the public. Any sanction it imposes must protect the public but must be the least restrictive sanction that achieves that aim.

38. The Panel first considered a caution order and decided that this would not be appropriate because it would not place any actual restriction on the Registrant’s practice to address the public protection concerns. Further, the Panel was of the view that the failings were too serious and that the public interest would not be served by such a sanction.

39. The Panel next considered whether a period of conditions of practice would be appropriate to enable the Registrant to proactively seek employment as an Occupational Therapist and demonstrate to a future panel that he is a safe practitioner. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s total lack of engagement in this process and what it considered to be no commitment by him over the last two years to comply with the recommendations made to him by the previous panels, whilst subject to periods of suspension. The Panel was mindful that the imposition of a conditions of practice order requires a registrant to engage fully with the fitness to practise process to protect the public and improve his professional practice, with a view to returning him to safe and unrestricted practice. The Panel determined that, in the circumstances of this case, it was not possible to devise appropriate, workable and realistic conditions of practice that would protect the public.

40. The Panel next considered imposing a further period of suspension. In the Panels view, whilst an extension of the Suspension Order would protect the public, it would not be in the wider public interest. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s efforts to comply with the suggestions made to him by two previous panels since 2023 have been woeful and that the progress made by him since the substantive hearing was negligible. It determined that, in the particular circumstances of the case, affording the Registrant another opportunity to reflect further and assemble the documentary evidence required to demonstrate that he has fully remediated his failings, and would not repeat them, would serve no useful purpose.

41. The Panel therefore determined that the only sanction that would adequately protect the public and serve the public interest was a Striking Off Order. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account that it had no evidence of the Registrant’s intention or ability to remediate his practice. The Panel concluded that the Registrant posed an ongoing risk to the safety of the public, which would continue without remediation in the future. The Panel was mindful of the need for proportionality in deciding what sanction to impose but, with careful regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, was of the view that no engagement and a lack of remediation over a three-year period is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered professional. It is for these reasons that the Panel has concluded that a Striking Off Order is the only sanction that would protect the public and serve the public interest. This includes maintaining confidence in the regulatory process.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the registration of Mr Vimal Vinod from the HCPC Register on the expiry of the existing Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 16 January 2026.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you. Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

History of Hearings for Vimal Vinod