​​Alison E Wyndham​

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to her registered email address on 10 November 2025 informing her that there would be a hearing on 23 February 2026 to consider the voluntary removal agreement (VRA) application. An email delivery notification has been provided.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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 Doyle on behalf of the HCPC.

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

6. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing dated 10 November 2025 gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit written representations or seek an adjournment. The Panel was aware that the Registrant had responded through her representative by email dated 17 and 19 February 2026 confirming that they would not be attending. The Registrant made no application for an adjournment.

7. 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 herself, an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance, and no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment.

8. 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 her absence was outweighed by the public interest in the case proceeding to ensure that the case could progress to a conclusion.

Background

9. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Physiotherapist who was previously self-employed.

10. On 29 November 2021, the HCPC received a referral in relation to the Registrant’s fitness to practise. It was alleged that the Registrant was promoting an unauthorised illegal investment scam to service users via social media, called ‘CashFX Group’. The complainant alleged that CashFX had 28 regulatory warnings worldwide, including from the Financial Conduct Authority and provided access to a Facebook post made by the Registrant on 21 August 2021.

11. On 25 October 2024, an Investigating Committee Panel considered the matter and found a case to answer. It referred the Allegation above to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

12. On 07 March 2025, the Registrant’s representative requested this matter be considered for consensual disposal and provided a reflection from the Registrant. Within this, the Registrant stated the following:

“In hindsight I realise that it was not a good idea to have recommended CFX on 24 August 2021 on Facebook and that it was not in line with Standards 2.7 and 9.3 of HCPC’s Standards of Conduct in force in 2021. My post could have had a negative impact on the reputation of the profession and damaged the trust and confidence in the profession. I apologise to the public, the profession and the HCPC for my actions. I admit the allegations proceeding to final hearing, including that my fitness to practise is impaired”.

13. 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 this way.

Submissions

14. Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC referred to the skeleton argument dated 17 February 2026 and submitted that this case should be disposed of by consent, by way of a voluntary removal agreement.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 a Physiotherapist. They have not been working since December 2024 and have retired. If not for this matter, the Registrant states she 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.

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

19. The Panel had regard to the representation made by the Registrant through her representative and noted that she agreed to the VRA.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 Application

25. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Disposal of Case by Consent’. The Panel considered the bundle of documents submitted by the HCPC consisting of 62 pages, the skeleton argument dated 17 February 2026, the Notice of Withdrawal and the email from the Registrant’s representative dated 19 February 2026.

26. 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 she was consenting to and the effect of that order.

27. 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.

28. The Panel was aware that the Registrant was represented, and the representative had indicated their agreement to the VRA.

29. The Panel first considered whether there was a full admission to the Allegation. The Panel had regard to the reflective piece of the Registrant. 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 was advised and represented, understood what was alleged and the process of voluntary removal from the register.

30. 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.

31. The Panel considered that the conduct alleged and admitted, by advertising an unreputable financial scheme, was capable of amounting to a finding of impairment by reason of misconduct. The Panel noted the Registrant’s intention to retire from practice.

32. Although the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct may not have resulted in a Striking Off Order, as it did not relate to her registered clinical practice, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s circumstances met the underlying purpose of removal by consent, which is to avoid unnecessary Substantive Hearings.

33. 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 a Physiotherapist, using any title associated with that profession and would prevent her 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.

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

35. 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 was a discreet issue not associated with the Registrant’s clinical practice and will remain on the Registrant’s record should she apply for re admission to the register. The Panel noted that should the Registrant wish to return to the HCPC Register, then she will also have several requirements to fulfil before being able to regain registration.

36. 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 Physiotherapy profession and was likely to undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and its regulator.

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

38. 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 and her witness in all appropriate sections.

The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Alison Wyndham from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available.

History of Hearings for ​​Alison E Wyndham​