​​Steven Taylor​

No information currently available

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by post, to his registered address, on 09 February 2026 informing him that there would be a hearing on 8 April 2026 to consider the Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”) application. A confirmation of the posting of the Notice of Hearing by first class post has been provided. The Registrant confirmed on the telephone on 5 February 2026 that his postal address should be used for the Notice of Hearing.

2. The Hearings Officer wrote by post to the Registrant to his registered address on 30 March 2026, confirming the time and date of the hearing and asking for confirmation that he would be attending, whether he would be represented and if he would be submitting any further documents.

3. Confirmation of postage with a reference number was provided on 30 March 2026. 

4. A telephone log of a telephone call to the Registrant has been provided dated 5 February 2026.  The Registrant confirmed that he would not be attending the hearing. He stated that he intended to rely on his statements already provided and was not intending to file any further documents.

5. The Registrant confirmed by telephone to the Hearings Officer on 7 April 2026, that he would not be attending the hearing.

6. The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep their contact details with the HCPC up to date.

7. The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents.

Proceeding in absence

8. The Panel considered whether it was appropriate and fair to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the representations made by Mr Barnfield on behalf of the HCPC.

9. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

10. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing dated 9 February 2026, gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit written representations or seek an adjournment. The Panel was aware that the Registrant had confirmed by telephone that he would not be attending. The Registrant made no application for an adjournment.

11. The Panel was mindful of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so. In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel considered that it was appropriate to proceed as the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself, an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance, and no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment.

12. The Panel noted that the VRA application was unopposed and was satisfied that this minimised any potential unfairness to the Registrant. In addition, any prejudice caused to the Registrant by proceeding in his absence was outweighed by the public interest in the case proceeding to ensure that the case could progress to a conclusion.

Privacy

13. Mr Barnfield applied for those parts of the hearing relating to private, family and health matters be held in private. He acknowledged that there was an ‘open justice’ principle, however, those specific matters mentioned should be in private to protect the private life of the Registrant and in the interests of justice. 

14. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that ‘open justice’ meant that, in general hearings should be held in public. However, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights is subject to specific exceptions which allow hearings to be heard wholly or partially in private. The two main scenarios where this would arise are:

i. protecting the private life of the Registrant; and

ii. where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

15. The Panel concluded that it was appropriate to rely on both exceptions and that the matter ought to be heard in public but that the hearing should be in private in relation to private, family and health matters.

Background 

16. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist and his employment with East Coast Community Healthcare CIC (“ECCH”) ended on 30 May 2021. 

17. On 6 July 2021, the HCPC received a referral from the Registrant’s employer citing allegations of misconduct. Namely making a health record in such a way that represented a breach of ECCH Policy and putting at risk the data security and the safety of patients.

18. On 17 January 2023, the Investigating Committee Panel considered the matter and adjourned the matter for the case to be remitted to the HCPC due to the administrative quality of the Allegation and accompanying papers.

19. On 6 November 2024, the Investigating Committee Panel considered the matter and found a case to answer. It referred the Allegation above to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

20. On 1 July 2025, the Registrant requested this matter be considered for consensual disposal and provided a reflection. Within this the Registrant stated the following:

“I fully accept that my standard of practice fell below the standards of practise set out by the HCPC for a registered OT… I have a deep feeling of shame and embarrassment at the way my career ended. I am fully aware that as a practising therapist I had the responsibility to ensure that I as [sic] fit to practice, and I failed to do so. I have made the decision that I will not be returning to work in the Health and Social Care Sector in any capacity.”

21. The HCPC agreed that this case is suitable for a VRA as there was no public interest or public protection reason preventing this case from concluding in this way.

Submissions

22. Mr Barnfield on behalf of the HCPC submitted that this case should be disposed of by consent, by way of a voluntary removal agreement.

23. It was submitted that this case was suitable for disposal by way of VRA because:

a. the Registrant admits the substance of the allegation;
b. voluntary removal adequately protects the public;
c. voluntary removal is not detrimental to the wider public interest.

24. The HCPC and the Registrant recognise that participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to the approval of the VRA, and that it is a matter for the Panel to consider.

25. The HCPC submit that this matter is suitable for disposal by way of VRA because:

a. The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation. They have signed a consensual disposal request pro forma which sets out the allegation that is capable of proof. They confirmed that they have read the relevant Practice Note, that they admit the substance of that allegation, that it amounts to misconduct and that their fitness to practise is impaired as a result.

b. Voluntary removal adequately protects the public. The Registrant would be removed from the HCPC register and would not be entitled to practise as an Occupational Therapist. He has not been working since resigning his post with ECCH in 2021 and has retired. If not for this matter, the Registrant states he would have already left the HCPC register. They have undertaken not to seek to return to the register within a period of five years, and should they attempt to do so at that point, they would have to demonstrate that they had fully remediated their current impairment.

c. Voluntary removal is not detrimental to the wider public interest. There is no wider public interest in these allegations being considered at a final hearing and the public interest is best addressed by preventing any potential repetition of the allegations. In these circumstances, the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the professions and promoting proper professional standards is best addressed by removing the Registrant from the register at the earliest opportunity.

26. The Panel was invited to approve the VRA and withdraw the proceedings in accordance with the draft Notice of Withdrawal.

27. The Panel had regard to the representation made by the Registrant and noted that he agreed to the VRA.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

28. The Panel was referred to the Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent and was reminded that the HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public.

29. Where the HCPC and the Registrant wish to conclude a case without the need for a contested hearing, they may seek to do so by putting before a Panel an order of the kind which they consider the Panel would make if the case had proceeded to a full substantive hearing. Disposal by consent does not affect a Panel’s powers or the range of sanctions available. It is merely a process by which the HCPC and the Registrant concerned may propose what they regard as an appropriate outcome to the case.

30. The Panel should not agree to a case being resolved by consent unless it is satisfied that:

a. the appropriate level of public protection is being secured;
b. doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest;
c. the Registrant understands what they are consenting to and the effect of the consent order that they are asking the Panel to make.

31. If the Panel decides that the proposed disposal does not adequately protect the public and/or uphold the wider public interest, it should reject that proposal, and the case will then be listed for a full substantive hearing. Similarly, if the Panel is not persuaded that the Registrant understands the effect of the proposed order or is concerned that any admission of the facts alleged is equivocal, then the Panel should not make the order until it is so satisfied.

32. In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public and that it is in the public interest to do so the Registrant may be permitted to resign from the Register by entering into a VRA. This will allow the Registrant to be removed from the Register, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the Registrant had been struck off.

Decision on the Application

33. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Disposal of Cases by Consent. The Panel considered the bundle of documents submitted by the HCPC consisting of a redacted bundle of 177 pages, the unredacted service bundle of 11 pages, the skeleton argument dated 30 March 2026, received by the Panel on 8 April 2026 and the latest Practice Note Disposal of Cases by Consent.

34. The Panel conducted a full review of the case, taking into account all the information before it, and took care to ensure that the proposed agreement afforded the appropriate level of public protection, was not detrimental to the wider public interest and that the Registrant understood what he was consenting to and the effect of that order.

35. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC has provided a clear, appropriately detailed and objectively justified explanation within its skeleton argument of why the matter is suitable for disposal by consent and has made clear to the Registrant concerned that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to a Consent Order being approved.

36. The Panel was aware that the Registrant was not represented and had indicated his agreement to the VRA.

37. The Panel first considered whether there was a full admission to the Allegation. The Panel had regard to the supporting information of the Registrant in the consensual disposal application dated 1 July 2025. In relation to the Allegation a panel of the Investigating Committee had found there to be a ‘case to answer’. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant understood what was alleged and the process of voluntary removal from the register.

38. The Panel noted that the Registrant had admitted the Allegation in full and sought removal from the Register. On the basis of the material before it and the full admissions of the Registrant the Panel was satisfied that the particulars of the Allegation were capable of being found proved on the balance of probabilities.

39. The Panel considered that the conduct alleged and admitted was capable of amounting to a finding of misconduct. The Panel noted that the Registrant had resigned and indicated that he would not be returning to work in the health and social care sector in any capacity. 

40. The Panel was satisfied that the circumstances of the case met the underlying purpose of removal by consent, which is to avoid unnecessary Substantive Hearings.

41. The Panel also noted that the VRA mirrors the terms of a Striking Off Order, in that it would prevent the Registrant from practising as an Occupational Therapist, using any title associated with that profession and would prevent him from making an application to be re-admitted to the Register within 5 years. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was fully aware of the consequences of voluntary removal and has willingly entered into such an agreement with the HCPC. The Panel therefore concluded that it does not consider that the matters raised in this case are such that a Substantive Hearing is warranted.

42. The Panel was satisfied that public protection was appropriately addressed with the VRA as the Registrant would be unable to practise as an Occupational Therapist and could not apply to be readmitted to the HCPC register for a period of 5 years.

43. The Panel also considered that the wider public interest would be appropriately dealt with and would not be affected by this matter not being publicly scrutinised at a Substantive Hearing. The Panel was of the view that the acceptance of a measure equivalent to Strike-Off would not be seen by the public as the Registrant being afforded an ‘easy’ way of retiring without coming before a Substantive Hearing. The concern within the Allegation will remain on the Registrant’s record should he apply for re- admission to the register. The Panel noted that should the Registrant wish to return to the HCPC Register, then he will also have several requirements to fulfil before being able to regain his registration.

44. The Panel therefore determined that there is a legitimate public interest in avoiding a Substantive Hearing where full admissions have been made and where the Registrant has expressed a clear desire to be removed from the Register. Furthermore, the Panel noted that prolonging the hearing process had the potential to damage the reputation of the Occupational Therapy profession and was likely to undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and its regulator.

45. Consequently, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel concluded that in all the circumstances, the approval of the proposed VRA is the proportionate and appropriate course of action in this case.

46. The Panel noted that the VRA presented to it documented that the terms of the VRA had been signed by the HCPC and the Registrant in all appropriate sections.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Steven Taylor from the Register with immediate effect.

History of Hearings for ​​Steven Taylor​