​​Misbah Ansari​

Preliminary matters 

Notice

1. The Panel was informed by the Hearings Officer, and had documentary evidence before it, that the Notice of Hearing (hereafter ‘the Notice’) was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address, and that of her representative, on 28 October 2025.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that the Notice had been properly served in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Investigating Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’). 

3. In forming its view that good service had been effected, the Panel noted the email correspondence from the Registrant’s UNISON representative, dated 23 April 2025, which stated:

Email dated 23 April 2025

“…Thanks. I can confirm that neither Misbah or myself intend to attend the hearing. I will ask Misbah to return the necessary paperwork, response to allegation and witness statement agreement, but regrettably you probably won’t receive them today.”

Proceeding in absence

4. Mr Maughan, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In doing so, he submitted the following:

i. the Registrant and her UNISON representative were served with the Notice on 28 October 2025, by email, and the Notice advised of the date, time, and venue of today’s hearing (remote). Therefore, all reasonable steps had been taken by the HCPC to serve the Notice on the Registrant; 

ii. the Panel should balance fairness to both parties when considering whether to proceed with today’s hearing; 

iii. the Registrant had previously responded to the HCPC correspondence and her representative had indicated that neither of them would be attending the hearing. It could be inferred that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had not attended. Therefore, the Registrant could be considered to have voluntarily absented herself; 

iv. the matter before the Panel amounted to a public protection issue and that needed adjudicating upon today;

v. the Registrant had also not sought an adjournment of today’s hearing and there was nothing before the Panel to suggest that an adjournment would secure her future attendance at a hearing; and

vi. the public interest to proceed with the hearing outweighed any prejudice to the Registrant in proceeding.

Panel decision

5. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

6. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 28 October 2025 and that the Registrant had been notified of the venue (remote hearing) and time of today’s hearing within the Notice. Further, the Panel was also satisfied that the HCPC had informed the Registrant of the nature of today’s hearing and that the HCPC had also outlined to the Registrant, in its Skeleton Argument and other documentation, the nature and purpose of the hearing. 

7. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:

i. the Panel noted that the Registrant’s representative had corresponded with the HCPC on a number of occasions previously and so it was clear to the Panel that the Registrant, via her representative, was aware of who to contact should she have required an adjournment of today’s proceedings, and no such application had been made. Further, the Panel also noted that it had no indication or information before it that the Registrant would be willing to attend on an alternative date. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the proceedings and re-listing this hearing would serve no useful purpose; 

ii. whilst the Panel recognised that there may be the potential for disadvantage to the Registrant in not appearing and being able to make oral submissions to it, the Panel balanced this with the fact that the Registrant had been afforded with an opportunity to attend the hearing and/or to provide written submissions for the Panel’s consideration and the Registrant had provided a statement to it, which the Panel would have regard to;

iii. further, the Panel was also cognisant of the fact that there could be public protection issues for it to consider. The Panel also considered that there is a public interest in dealing with matters expeditiously and it also considered fairness to the HCPC. Having regard to all of these matters, the Panel determined that the need to deal with matters expeditiously outweighed any potential disadvantage which may be caused to the Registrant if the Panel proceeded in her absence. 

8. Consequently, having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearsay application

9. Mr Maughan drew the Panel’s attention to the background of the case (as set out below) and in doing so he made an application to rely upon hearsay evidence. Specifically, Mr Maughan sought to rely upon the information contained within the HCPC substantive hearing bundle at pages 17 to 46. 

10. In support of his application, Mr Maughan submitted the following:

i. the Registrant had been informed of the HCPC’s intention to apply to rely upon hearsay evidence contained within the HCPC bundle; 

ii. fairness to the Registrant could be met. The Registrant had had the opportunity to oppose the application and she had not done so, nor had she made submissions on the point; 

iii. the Registrant had agreed for the witness statements to be admitted into proceedings;

iv. the Panel ought to consider the matter carefully;

v. the HCPC case was that it is supportive of a lack of proficiency of English and is relevant to the subject of the Allegation in this case; 

vi. should the Panel determine to admit the evidence, it could then consider what weight, if any, to place upon that evidence; and 

vii. having regard to the aforementioned, the evidence should be admitted. 

Panel decision

11. The Panel took Mr Maughan’s submissions and the documentation before it into account, which included the Registrant’s agreement to admit the witness statements. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s legal advice and it applied the legal principles to its decision-making. In considering whether it was fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the Panel accepted that the weight to be given to the evidence was for it to consider at a later stage. 

12. The Panel noted that some of the evidence presented to it comprised of evidence from the Registrant’s employer and its referral to the HCPC. In particular, the Panel noted its concerns relating to the Registrant’s command of the English language and her communication. 

13. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before it, the Panel also concluded that there was no evidence before it to suggest that the hearsay evidence had been fabricated or was biased and the Panel also considered that it derived from independent and reliable sources. 

14. The Panel also determined, having regard to the Legal Assessor’s advice and the considerations outlined in Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565, that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to place the Registrant on notice that the hearsay application was going to be made and the Registrant had agreed to the material being placed before the Panel and did not seek to challenge the contents of the statements in any way.

15. Consequently, having regard to all of the aforementioned and to its overriding objective of public protection and fairness, the Panel determined to admit the hearsay evidence into proceedings. 

Background

16. The Registrant was admitted to the HCPC Register as a Speech and Language Therapist (‘SALT’) on 03 January 2024.

17. This case concerns the HCPC’s English language requirements in respect of entry onto the HCPC Register as a SALT.

18. In cases where a registrant’s first language is not English, the HCPC requires registrants to submit an International English Language Testing System (‘IELTS’) certificate demonstrating at least a score of 8.0 across listening, reading, writing, and speaking, with no elements below 7.5. Given the communicative nature of the role, the level of proficiency required for SALTs is higher than other professions, which require a lower IELTS score of 7.0 with no element below 6.5.

19. On 21 July 2023, an application was received by the HCPC from the Registrant to join the Register as a SALT.

20. In her application, the Registrant made a declaration that English was not her first language.

21. As a result, the HCPC sent the Registrant an email on 25 July 2023 requesting a photocopy of an eligible IELTS certificate in order to substantiate a level of English language proficiency which met the standard of English language proficiency for the role of a SALT. 

22. Within the email at Section 5, the HCPC confirmed “there can be no element of your test below 6.5”. However, the reference to “6.5” was an administrative error and the email should have stipulated a score of at least 8.0 with no element below 7.5, that being in line with the English language proficiency standard in place for a SALT at the time.

23. The Registrant subsequently submitted an IELTS certificate which demonstrated the following proficiency in English language:

Listening 7.5

Reading 7.5

Writing 6.5

Speaking 7.0

Overall band score – 7.0

24. The above level of proficiency met the threshold within the HCPC’s email and indeed the standard for a non-SALT, but did not meet the higher threshold for entry of a SALT onto the Register as was required within the HCPC standards.

25. Due to a further administrative error, the Registrant’s application was accepted by the HCPC and she was subsequently entered onto the HCPC Register as a SALT on 3 January 2024.

26. In January 2024, the Registrant took up a Band 6 SALT post at The Willows Children and Family Centre (‘the Centre’), Crichton Royal Hospital, part of NHS Scotland. 

27. Soon after joining the team, concerns were raised regarding the Registrant’s English capabilities, particularly in light of her reliance on Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) when completing clinical tasks, which was prohibited by the Trust’s health board.

28. Following the three-month induction process, it was felt that support was still required. Therefore, an early resolution support plan was put in place which involved a request for information relating to the Registrant’s language proficiencies. 

29. The Registrant provided four IELTS certificates to her employer, including the IELTS certificate which was provided by the Registrant in support of her English language proficiency at the initial HCPC registration stage. As a result of the scores, the matter was referred to the HCPC by the employer.

Summary of the evidence

HCPC

30. The HCPC relied upon:

i. a hearing bundle of 53 pages; 

ii. a case summary of 6 pages; and 

iii. an email exchange of 4 pages. 

HM – International Registrations Operations Manager for the HCPC

(Below is provided as a summary of HM’s written evidence to the Panel and is not intended to be a verbatim account of it).

31. HM outlined that she is currently employed as the International Registrations Operations Manager for the HCPC. 

32. HM informed the Panel that the HCPC received the Registrant’s application for registration on 21 July 2023, and that she had applied to join the Register as a SALT and her application number was AA830727. 

33. HM stated that as the Registrant had indicated that English was not her first language, she was requested to provide evidence of her ‘English Language test’.

34. HM stated that in an email dated 25 July 2023, the Registrant was informed that she “needed to provide a photocopy of an eligible language test certificate that meets the standards of proficiency, there can be no element of your test below 6.5”. HM outlined in her written statement that this was an administrative error as it should have read “8.0, with no element below 7.5” owing to the Registrant applying to join the HCPC register as a SALT. 

35. HM subsequently outlined in her witness statement, which was before the Panel, that the Registrant provided an International English Language Testing System (‘IELTS’) certificate dated 18 October 2023 with her application and the certificate showed the following scores: ‘Listening 7.5; Reading 7.5; Writing 6.5; Speaking 7.0; Overall band score 7.0 CEFR Level C1’.

36. HM further outlined that due to an administrative error in respect of the Registrant’s scores (in that the Registrant did not have an overall score of 8.0 or higher and she had elements below 7.5), the Registrant’s application was accepted by the HCPC and she was entered onto the HCPC Register as a SALT on 03 January 2024. 

JS – Registrant’s former line manager

37. JS provided a witness statement. In it, she outlined that she is a SALT and the Allied Health Professions (‘AHP’) Manager for Children and Young People at The Willows Children and Family Centre (‘the Centre’), Crichton Royal Hospital, which is part of NHS Scotland.

38. JS outlined that she was the Registrant’s team manager and had been part of the interview panel that appointed the Registrant to her SALT position. JS stated that she had no concerns about the Registrant’s command of English during her interview for her role. However, she also outlined that concerns became immediately apparent when the Registrant commenced in her role and it was established that she was using AI to write emails and prepare her notes.

39. JS stated that she sought advice from others and she was informed that it was not acceptable to use AI for clinical tasks. JS conveyed this information to the Registrant and it then became clear to JS that, without the use of AI, the Registrant’s English language capabilities were ‘an issue’.

40. JS also outlined that after the Registrant completed the three-month induction process, it became clear that scaling back the support that was in place during that process would be “problematic”. After seeking further support from HR colleagues, JS stated that, on 30 May 2024, an early resolution support plan was devised. As part of that plan, the Registrant was asked to share any documentation with her that the Registrant had provided to the HCPC, which JS stated the Registrant duly did. 

41. JS also outlined that in terms of the Registrant’s capabilities, she observed that the Registrant communicated adequately in a social context in English and that she tries hard to engage in social conversation with colleagues in the team. However, JS also outlined that the Registrant’s processing of language appears to be challenging and she often asks for things to be repeated to her, and when JS knew that the Registrant had “issues” with her command of English, JS made sure she was supervised at all times. 

The Registrant 

42. Given that the Registrant had not attended the hearing, the Panel had regard to the correspondence between the Registrant’s representative and the HCPC contained within the HCPC bundle. In addition, the Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s two statements, which stated the following:

“…

I am writing to provide clarity regarding my recent HCPC application and the associated circumstances. 

I made my application in good faith, believing I met all the necessary requirements. My application was accepted, which we now understand was due to an administration error. 

I want to emphasize that I was truthful from the start and followed the guidance provided to me via email from HCPC. 

There was never any intention to falsify my application; I adhered to all instructions as they were presented. Unfortunately, I did not expect or wish to engage in the formal processes that arose from this error. 

[Redacted]

After careful consideration of these events, I have decided to leave the SALT profession. 

Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your attention to this matter.” 

And:

“…

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to provide further clarification concerning my recent application to the HCPC and the circumstances surrounding it. 

I submitted my application with the sincere belief that I met all requisite criteria. Although my application was accepted, it has come to light that this was due to an administrative oversight. I would like to reaffirm that I have been transparent throughout this process and have adhered to the guidance provided in the correspondence from HCPC. 

At no point did I intend to misrepresent my qualifications, and I followed all instructions as they were outlined. Unfortunately, I did not anticipate the formal procedures that have emerged from this error.

[Redacted]

After thorough reflection on these events, I have made the decision to discontinue my practice within the SALT profession. 

Thank you for your consideration and understanding regarding this matter.”

Decision on Facts 

Panel’s approach

43. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities. 

44. In reaching a decision, the Panel took into account all of the evidence and documentation presented to it and also the oral submissions made by Mr Maughan on behalf of the HCPC. 

45. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Allegation 

Your entry onto the HCPC register as a speech and language therapist SL041730 was incorrectly made, in that you were registered despite not meeting the HCPC’s English Language requirements for speech and language therapists.

46. The Panel had regard to the HCPC substantive hearing bundle and the documentary evidence contained therein, which included the Registrant’s written submissions to the HCPC (outlined above). In particular, the Panel noted that it had before it: the HCPC’s expected standards for IELTS certificate scores; the Registrant’s English Language IELTS certificates outlining her proficiency scores in English Language, which were not of the required standard; and confirmation of the Registrant having been entered onto the HCPC Register on 03 January 2024.

47. Consequently, having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied to the requisite standard that the Registrant had been incorrectly entered onto the HCPC Register as a SALT, with the aforementioned registration number, by the HCPC, despite not meeting the HCPC’s English Language requirements for SALTs.

48. Having determined that the Registrant’s entry onto the HCPC Register had been incorrectly made, and given that the Registrant does not meet the required standards of proficiency (as determined by the IELTS certificate provided by the Registrant), the Panel determined that the only appropriate outcome, to safeguard the public and protect the reputation of the SALT profession and the HCPC as its Regulator, was to direct that the Registrar remove the Registrant’s name from the HCPC Register. The Panel considered that there were no appropriate amendments that could be made to the Register in this case (per Article 26(7)).

The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Misbah Ansari from the Register with immediate effect.

Interim Order

Noting that Mr Maughan did not make an application for an interim order, and the Panel having been informed that there was no interim order in place, the Panel considered whether to impose an interim order as permitted by Article 31(b) of the Health Professions Order 2001. 

The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s legal advice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note titled “Interim Orders”. 

The Panel considered that it was appropriate, in view of its direction to the Registrar to remove the Registrant from the HCPC Registrar, that an Interim Order should be in place to ensure public protection and the public interest during any appeal period. The Panel considered that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate, workable, or proportionate in this case in view of its finding that the Registrant fails to meet the appropriate standards of proficiency. Consequently, the Panel considered that the only appropriate interim order to cover the appeal period was that of an Interim Suspension Order. The Panel considered that a period of 18 months would allow for any such appeal to be determined.

The Panel therefore made an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. 

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for ​​Misbah Ansari​