Ahsan Ali

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of today’s hearing by email dated 16 October 2025 in accordance with the Health and Care (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended (the Rules). Service of notice was confirmed by email of the same date.

Proceeding in Absence

2. Mr Hendron made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant on the grounds that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend. The Panel noted that there has been no contact from the Registrant since January 2025 in relation to this substantive case.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Registrant had not applied for an adjournment of today’s hearing nor advanced any reasons why the hearing should be adjourned. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and had waived his right to attend. The Panel considered that the Registrant would be unlikely to attend at a future date if the hearing were to be adjourned and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. It was in the public interest that the Allegation be heard and determined without further delay. In all the circumstances, the Panel determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Background:

4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Hearing Aid Dispenser. He was employed in that capacity by Hearing Health and Mobility Limited (“the employer”) from July 2017.

5. The HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant on 7 February 2019 and a referral from the Registrant's employer dated 8 February 2019 in relation to same matters. They disclosed that the Registrant accepted, and paid into his personal bank account, two cheques, dated 17 November 2018 and 17 December 2018. These cheques had been given to him by a service user, (Service User A).

6. In his referral form, the Registrant claimed that there had been a misunderstanding and that he had never meant to keep the money for himself. He also asserted that he did not realise that the service user had paid twice for hearing aids which he had supplied to her.

7. On 4 March 2019, the Registrant's former employer informed the HCPC that the Registrant had also paid into his personal bank account another cheque in the sum of £1,950 on 19 November 2018. The Registrant confirmed that this cheque was from another service user.

8. Following these incidents, the Registrant was dismissed from his employment.

9. The police commenced a criminal investigation which resulted in the Registrant being convicted at the Crown Court sitting at Gloucester on 7 May 2024 on six counts of fraud by abuse of position. The Registrant was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment on each count concurrently and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £140.

10. The six counts of fraud were practised on five service users, each of whom was elderly and vulnerable. The frauds were described in the sentencing remarks of the trial Judge as follows:

• The Registrant’s employment involved him visiting the homes of elderly people who needed hearing aids. He took advantage of the fact that they were elderly and easy to confuse to take their money.

• In September 2018, the Registrant requested and received £200 in cash from Service User B for a hearing test, for which no fee was payable.

• In November 2018 he supplied hearing aids at a cost of £4,000 to Service User A, who was aged about 88. He pretended that an attempt to make payment by card to his employer’s account had failed and asked her to draw a cheque in his name. He went back to see her a few days later, by which time she had suffered a stroke, and told her untruthfully that the cheque had not gone through and therefore he needed a new cheque made out in his own name. Both cheques, totalling £8,000, were paid into the Registrant’s own bank account.

• In November 2018, he took a payment of £1,950 from another elderly service user, Service User C, that should have been to his employer but was paid to himself instead.

• In November 2018 he attended the home of another elderly service user, Service User D, who wanted his hearing aid repaired. The Registrant told him that it could not be repaired and that he needed to buy a new one which would cost £950. Having previously been defrauded by someone else, Service User D was wary and took the Registrant to the bank with him for the Registrant to explain why the payment was required. The Registrant provided the bank with the details of his own account, not his employer’s account, and thereby obtained £950 for himself.

• In December 2018, the Registrant dishonestly obtained £590 in cash from another elderly service user, Service User E, by telling her that his employer preferred cash by way of a deposit for a new hearing aid.

11. The Registrant was not entitled to receive personal payments from any of the above service users and all such payments should have been made to his employer. In respect of each of the above, the Registrant retained the money for his own use.

12. In total, the Registrant obtained approximately £11,700 by practising fraud on five different service users, all of them elderly and vulnerable.

13. When these matters were investigated by his employer and the police respectively, the Registrant, according to the trial Judge, told “a load of lies and … his lying just carried on for months and months”.

14. The Judge stated that he would have sentenced the Registrant to 15 months’ imprisonment, which he reduced to 13 months to take account of the fact that the Registrant had pleaded guilty. The Judge noted that the Registrant had already spent approximately 6 months in prison, as a result of having failed to attend his trial when it was originally listed and would only serve a few additional weeks in prison before being released on licence.

Decision on Facts and Grounds:

15. Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules provides that, where a Registrant is convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based. The Panel was satisfied by the copy of the certificate of conviction that the facts set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation were proved and the statutory ground of conviction was established.

Decision on Impairment:

16. The Panel noted that the Registrant had submitted a document, apparently addressed to the Court of Appeal, asserting his innocence and claiming a miscarriage of justice. The Panel was unable to look behind the record of the Registrant’s conviction nor to place any reliance as to the truth of these assertions.

17. The Registrant had provided no evidence of remorse, apology, reflection, insight or remediation. The Panel further noted that the Registrant had provided no information about his current circumstances, either personal or work-related, nor had he produced any references or testimonials.

18. The Panel took into account the transcript of the Judge’s sentencing remarks and his reference to the humiliation caused by the Registrant to the elderly service users by being taken advantage of and the fact that he had repaid none of the money of which he had defrauded them.

19. The Panel had regard to the submissions of Mr Hendron.

20. The Panel applied the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

21. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the personal and public aspects of impairment. The personal aspect relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Hearing Aid Dispenser, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts to remediate his practice. The public aspect includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

22. With regard to the personal element of impairment, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s unrestricted practice was likely to put members of the public at risk of significant harm, given the repeated pattern of his fraudulent misconduct on elderly and vulnerable service users and the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation. The Panel considered that there was a real risk of repetition and consequently of significant harm to service users.

23. When deciding whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel also took into account the responsibility of the HCPC to uphold proper standards of conduct on the part of members of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that, given the serious nature of the convictions, public confidence in the profession and in the regulator would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made.

24. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Hearing Aid Dispenser is impaired by reason of his conviction in respect of both personal and public aspects.

Decision on Sanction:

25. The Panel considered the submissions of Mr Hendron on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not provided any representations (apart from those addressed to the Court of Appeal), references or testimonials, nor had he provided any information about his personal circumstances.

26. The Panel took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and the Practice Note on Conviction and Caution Allegations. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

27. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour on the part of registrants and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

28. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness and applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the respective interests of the Registrant and the public.

29. In the Panel’s judgment, the aggravating factors in the case are as follows:-

• The Registrant abused his position of trust to take advantage of service users, who were vulnerable by reason of their age and infirmity, for his own financial benefit;

• The Registrant’s dishonest conduct was repeated over a period of three months in relation to five individual service users and amounted to a pattern of dishonest conduct;

• The Registrant’s dishonest conduct caused harm to the service users by undermining their sense of security and causing them financial loss;

• The Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC in relation to this hearing and has provided no evidence of remorse, apology, insight or remediation.

30. With regard to mitigating factors:

• The Registrant pleaded guilty to the offences of fraud at the Crown Court. However, the fact that he is now asserting that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice would appear to undermine his guilty plea as a mitigating factor.

• The Judge in his sentencing remarks referred to the possibility that the Registrant had some problems at home and/or mental health issues but, in the absence of any relevant evidence from the Registrant, the Panel was unable to take such matters into account.

31. The Panel considered the various options by way of disposal in ascending order of seriousness.

32. The Panel considered that the case is too serious for the Panel to take no action, as it involves a conviction of offences of fraud by abusing his position of trust to steal from elderly, vulnerable service users and therefore amounted to a grave breach of trust.

33. The Panel considered a Caution Order is not appropriate because of the serious nature of the Registrant’s conviction and the risk of repetition of conduct of a similar nature in the absence of any evidence of remediation. A Caution Order would not place any restriction on the Registrant’s ability to practise as a Hearing Aid Dispenser.

34. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order is not appropriate because the case does not relate to the Registrant’s competence as a Hearing Aid Dispenser but rather his suitability to be a member of the profession. In the absence of any evidence of insight and engagement in these proceedings, the Panel could not be satisfied that conditions of practice would protect the public or address the wider public interest.

35. The Panel considered the criteria for imposing a Suspension Order. The Panel noted that the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC in relation to this hearing. He had not provided the Panel with any reflection on the facts or circumstances relating to his conviction nor with any reasons to conclude that his conduct was out of character and would not happen again. He had not shown any evidence of insight or desire to remediate. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s conviction for offences of fraud on five vulnerable service users is such a serious matter as to be fundamentally incompatible with his remaining on the Register.

36. The Panel was mindful that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort and should be used where there is no other way to protect the public. In the Panel’s judgement, a lesser sanction than a Striking Off Order would not sufficiently protect the public or maintain public confidence in the integrity and reputation of the profession. The Registrant has not shown any insight or willingness to resolve matters. In the Panel’s judgement, the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction, combined with the aggravating factors set out in paragraph 29 above mean that he is not fit to be a member of the profession. Public confidence in both the profession and the Regulator would be undermined if he were allowed to continue in practice as a Hearing Aid Dispenser. In all the circumstances, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off Order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Ahsan Ali from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

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 Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order:

Application

37. Mr Hendron made an application for an Interim Suspension Order on the grounds that such an order was necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest. He repeated his earlier submission that the Panel should consider the application in the absence of the Registrant.

Decision

38. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Interim Orders” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

39. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to determine the application in the absence of the Registrant, given that the Registrant had been notified in the notice of hearing of the Panel’s powers to make an interim order at this stage and the fact that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing.

40. The Panel makes 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, for a period of 18 months.

41. 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 Ahsan Ali