Benjamin Slocombe
Profession: Occupational therapist
Registration Number: OT087024
Hearing Type: Final Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 10:45 23/01/2026
End: 17:00 23/01/2026
Location:
Via virtual video conference
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Caution
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT087024):
- In or around January 2023, during the application process for a role at Advo Health, you provided a curriculum vitae that contained fabricated and/or misleading information about your previous employment experience.
2. On or around 09 March 2023, you amended the date on your Health and Care Professions Council letter of good standing to reflect an incorrect registration date.
3. On or around 10 March 2023, you provided Advo Health with the contact details for a Human Resources Administrator at Medway NHS Foundation Trust who did not exist.
4. On 10 March 2023, you provided Advo Health with an employment reference which stated it was completed by a Human Resources Administrator at Medway NHS Foundation Trust when this was not the case.
5. On 14 March 2023 and 15 March 2023, when the Health and Care Professions Council’s Registration Department queried the validity of your Health and Care Professions Council letter of good standing, you provided fabricated explanations.
6. Your conduct in relation to particular 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was dishonest in that you knew you were providing fabricated and/or misleading information regarding your previous employment and/or your Health and Care Professions Council Registration.
7. The matters set out in particular 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above constitute misconduct.
8. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Hearing Partly in Private
1. On behalf of the HCPC Ms Collins applied for parts of the hearing to be conducted in private pursuant to rule 10(1)(a) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (‘the Rules’) and in view of the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note, Conducting Hearings in Private (March 2025). The application concerned matters of health and other aspects of the Registrant’s private and family life that were relevant to the Registrant’s case.
2. On behalf of the Registrant, Mrs Keats supported the application. The Legal Assessor advised that the application should be granted.
3. The Panel considered that in the circumstances it was appropriate to direct that those parts of the hearing that concern the private and family life of the Registrant be conducted in private. The Panel made a direction accordingly.
Background
4. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist (OT087024).
5. On 10 March 2023, the HCPC Registration Manager, AM, received information from HP, the Service Development Lead at a company called Advo Health. HP had made contact with the HCPC to query the validity of one of two Letters of Good Standing from the HCPC (apparently signed by AM) which had been provided to Advo Health by the Registrant.
6. HP explained that the Registrant had applied for a role as a Disability Assessor with Advo Health in January 2023 and was completing the “onboarding process”. He was required to have a minimum of 12 months experience as an Occupational Therapist and proof of registration, to be eligible for the role.
7. One of the Letters of Good Standing was dated 18 September 2021 and stated that the Registrant had been registered with the HCPC since 5 September 2018. The HCPC’s records indicated that the Registrant was first registered with the HCPC on 12 January 2023.
8. AM contacted the Registrant to query this Letter of Good Standing and the Registrant provided AM with an explanation by emails dated 14 and 15 March 2023. AM considered the explanation and made further investigations within the registration department. As a result, AM concluded that the information in the Letter of Good Standing was incorrect and that the explanation which the Registrant had given him was not true. AM referred the matter to the Fitness to Practise Department on 16 March 2023.
Decision on Facts
9. Ms Collins opened the case for the HCPC, and admissions were then made by the Registrant to the entirety of the factual particulars (numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Where the words ‘and/or’ appeared in the allegation, it was made clear by and on behalf of the Registrant that the admissions were on the basis of ‘and’ not ‘and/or’.
10. There followed an exchange between the Legal Assessor and the Registrant which showed that the Registrant understood the allegation and the potential implications of his admissions. It was also clear that the Registrant had made the admissions because he believed the particulars alleged to be true and had not admitted them for reasons of expediency and he had understood the legal test for dishonesty.
11. The Legal Assessor advised that in those circumstances the Panel could properly accept the admissions. The Panel retired and on its return the Chair announced particulars 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the allegation proven by virtue of those admissions. Its decision to accept the admissions was made in view of the responses given by and on behalf of the Registrant in the exchanges with the Legal Assessor and in view of the contents of the witness statements to which reference is made below and the contents of the further documents that had been placed before the Panel on behalf of the Registrant.
12. On 1 December 2025, a preliminary hearing panel had decided that seven of eight witnesses who the HCPC proposed to call at this final hearing would not be required to attend and their evidence may be read on behalf of the HCPC. By email of 2 December 2025 on behalf of the Registrant, Mrs Keats stated the Registrant no longer required the eighth of those witnesses, HP, to give oral evidence and that the Registrant was content “for all of HCPC’s witness statements to stand as evidence” in chief.
13. Therefore, the following witness statements were admitted in evidence, once the Registrant had made clear to the Panel that he did not challenge their contents:
• HP (Service Development Lead, Advo Health), dated 24 January 2024;
• AM (HCPC Registrations Manager), dated 17 November 2023;
• AW (HCPC Registrations Dept.), dated 27 October 2023;
• JK (Medway NHS Foundation Trust), dated 27 November 2023;
• GW (Canterbury Christchurch University), dated 22 March 2024;
• CG (Medway Council), dated 27 March 2024;
• HW (Medway Community Healthcare), dated 2 February 2024;
• MC (Kent and Medway Partnership Trust) dated 24 July 2024.
Decision on Facts
14. Therefore, the Panel sets out below the facts found proved by reason of the admissions. They are as follows.
‘As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT087024):
1. In or around January 2023, during the application process for a role at Advo Health, you provided a curriculum vitae that contained inaccurate and misleading information about your previous employment experience.’
Admitted and found proved
‘2. On or around 9 March 2023, you amended the date on your Health and Care Professions Council letter of good standing to reflect an incorrect registration date.’
Admitted and found proved.
‘3. On or around 10 March 2023, you provided Advo Health with the contact details for a Human Resources
Administrator as set out at Schedule 1 who did not exist.’
Admitted and found proved.
‘4. On 10 March 2023, you provided Advo Health with an employment reference which stated it was completed by the Human Resources Administrator, at Schedule 1, when this was not the case.’
Admitted and found proved.
‘5. On 14 March 2023 and 15 March 2023, when the Health and Care Professions Council’s Registration Department queried the validity of your Health and Care Professions Council letter of good standing, you provided explanations that were not factually accurate.’
Admitted and found proved.
‘6. Your conduct in relation to any or all of particulars 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was dishonest in that you knew you were providing inaccurate or misleading information regarding your previous employment and your registration with the Health and Care Professions Council.’
Admitted and found proved.
Decision on Grounds
15. At the second stage of the hearing the Panel considered the matters of statutory grounds and current impairment. The Panel heard oral evidence from the Registrant, who was cross-examined and responded to questions from the Panel. The Registrant also relied on written submissions and several pieces of reflection, the first of which was written by him on 7 April 2023. The Panel also received submissions from Ms Collins and Mrs Keats and retired in the afternoon of the first day of the hearing in order to make its decision on statutory grounds and current impairment. Shortly after 13:00 on the second day of the hearing, the Panel reconvened to consider an application by Mrs Keats to re-open the Registrant’s case to rely on further written submissions. Ms Collins did not oppose the application and the Chair directed that the application be granted, having consulted with the other members of the Panel.
16. In making its decision on statutory grounds and current impairment, the Panel took into account all the evidence before it, including the facts proved by the Registrant’s admissions. The Panel also bore in mind all the submissions made on behalf of each party and the advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.
17. A definition of misconduct was given in the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1AC 311, PC where Lord Clyde stated at pp. 330 to 331:
‘Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the conduct to the profession of medicine. Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious … As counsel for the General Medical Council pointed out it is not simply clinical misconduct which is in issue. Professional misconduct extends further than that. So it is not simply misconduct in the carrying out of medical work which may qualify as professional misconduct. But there must be a link with the profession of medicine. Precisely what that link may be and how it may occur is a matter of circumstances. …’
18. The circumstances were as follows. On 13 January 2023 the Registrant, then 26 years of age, applied for employment with Advo Health as a Disability Assessor. The Registrant had qualified as an Occupational Therapist in July 2018, having undertaken clinical placements as part of that qualification. At the time of his job application, the Registrant had been working since 2019 at Tregoad Park, a holiday and caravan park, where he performed a number of roles.
19. The advertised written requirements for the post with Advo Health identified ‘Key Responsibilities’ as including, ‘Speaking with people making a claim for the PIP benefit and working to assess a variety of complex conditions and impairments. Using your strong verbal communication skills and write high quality, fair and accurate assessment reports.’ Those requirements also specified ‘Essential experience and qualifications’ to include a ‘[m]inimum of 12 months experience working as an RGN, RMN, RNLD, Paramedic, Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist or Doctor’, with professional registration requirements.
20. In his CV submitted to Advo Health the Registrant claimed to have had prior experience working as an Occupational Therapist in rotational posts at Medway Maritime Hospital and elsewhere in the period ‘June 2018 – 2020.’ That was untrue, because the placements he identified had been as part of his degree course and not further experience gained while working as a qualified Occupational Therapist.
21. By email of 24 January 2023 Advo Health made a conditional offer of employment to the Registrant ‘based on completion of our pre-employment checks.’ On the following day, the Registrant provided a number of documents to Advo Health, including a Letter of Good Standing with the HCPC, showing a date of first registration of 12 January 2023 and which the Registrant had downloaded from the HCPC’s online portal.
22. On 9 March 2023, the following events took place. HP called the Registrant, who had worked at Advo Health for three days at this stage, to ask for a Letter of Good Standing that covered the registration period of 12 months. Following a conversation between them in which the Registrant explained that he had had an earlier period of registration with the HCPC, the Registrant sent HP a Letter of Good Standing dated September 2021, which stated that the Registrant had been registered with the HCPC from 2018 to 2021. In fact, the Registrant created that document by altering details from the first Letter of Good Standing.
23. On 10 March 2023, HP contacted the HCPC to query this document and the HCPC investigated the matter and on 14 and 15 March 2023 the Registrant provided a series of untrue explanations to support his earlier registration date in 2018. Following extensive investigations, the HCPC concluded that, as was the case, the Registrant had not been registered before 12 January 2023.
24. On or shortly before 10 March 2023, HP requested a reference from the Registrant in respect of his work as an Occupational Therapist. This was due to anomalies in the Registrant’s prior periods of employment shown by the documents he had provided. The Registrant provided a name and an email address for an ‘Amanda Burton’, from the HR department at the Medway Maritime Hospital. HP requested a reference for the Registrant and, as HP put it in his witness statement, ‘Amanda came back to me on the same day, 10 March 2023, with the Registrant's reference.’
25. The Registrant called HP on 14 March 2023 and resigned from his employment, stating that he was not going to be able to obtain the proof of his prior registration.
26. As admitted and found proved, the Registrant acted dishonestly in a number of respects. Dishonestly, he provided a CV to Advo Health that was untrue, amended the date of registration on the HCPC Letter of Good Standing he had provided, gave the name of a non-existent referee, provided a reference from that person which he wrote himself and attempted to mislead the HCPC into accepting that he had been first registered in 2018; all in an attempt to secure employment as a Disability Assessor.
27. The Panel concluded that as a result, the Registrant failed to comply with the professional standards that applied at the time. These were the following, namely:
“Standards of Conduct, performance and ethics (2016)
Standard 9 Be honest and trustworthy
…
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
9.2 You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills”
“Standards of Proficiency for Occupational Therapists (pre-2023)
Registrant occupational therapists must: …
2.1 be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession.”
28. In considering the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct, the Panel has taken into account all the circumstances.
29. The Registrant explained why he acted as he did due to the acute personal circumstances he described to the Panel. However, he accepted that his conduct breached the trust expected of an HCPC registrant and that it fell far below both sets of professional standards. He accepted that his dishonesty was serious.
30. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions constituted a dishonest course of conduct to obtain employment as a Disability Assessor. The Registrant’s actions were carried out in breach of fundamental tenets of the profession. These consisted of different dishonest activities, including lying on his CV about key work experience, setting up and operating an email account of a fictitious person to provide a false employment reference, writing and providing that reference, fabricating a Letter of Good Standing from the HCPC, his regulator, and then attempting to mislead the HCPC as to his registration history, all to obtain work as a Disability Assessor.
31. The Registrant’s actions had the potential to cause considerable harm. The Panel does not agree with Mrs Keat’s submissions to the contrary in the final round of submissions. The Registrant lacked the clinical and other professional experience required to make the disability assessments required by the post he had dishonestly obtained. This created a substantial risk that he would make inappropriate disability assessments to the detriment of deserving claimants, adversely affecting their wellbeing and independence with potential knock-on effects to the detriment of the families supporting such claimants. Equally, there was a real risk that the Registrant would make assessments in favour of unmerited claims, to the financial disadvantage of members of the public generally. The Registrant’s conduct also put his employer at risk by potentially endangering its contract to provide the assessments.
32. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the actions of the Registrant were very serious and had brought the profession into disrepute.
33. The Panel concluded that each of the Registrant’s actions in particulars 1 – 6 inclusive was carried out with a view to obtaining employment as a Disability Assessor, employment for which the Registrant lacked the experience required to perform safely and effectively. Those actions, both individually and together, were sufficiently serious to constitute statutory misconduct.
34. For those reasons, the statutory ground of misconduct has been established.
Decision on Impairment
35. In making its decision on current impairment, the Panel has borne in mind the guidance set out in the HCPTS’s Practice Note, ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ (August 2025) and relevant case law, including CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) at [64] – [76].
36. The Panel first considered the ‘personal’ component of impairment. The Panel’s task is to form a view about the Registrant’s current fitness to practise based on, among other things, the Registrant’s past acts or omissions. The key questions which need to be answered are:
a. are the acts or omissions which led to the allegation remediable?
b. has the Registrant taken remedial action?
c. are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated?
37. Since June 2023 the Registrant has worked as a Band 5 Occupational Therapist employed by Devon County Council (‘DCC’), working in the Adult Health and Social Care Team.
38. The Registrant has had monthly supervision meetings with the Manager of that team, at which he has discussed his caseload in detail.
39. From the outset of his employment with DCC, the Registrant has also undertaken a preceptorship, which has involved monthly or more frequent meetings with his Band 6 Preceptor in which the Registrant has discussed his clinical cases and the choices he has made for the service users in his care. A key aspect of the preceptorship has been learning about key aspects of patient safety, including the role of ethics and more generally working as part of a team, consistently with the HCPC’s regulatory requirements. The Registrant considers that this programme has helped him to consolidate ethical practice into his daily decision-making as a practitioner.
40. Further monthly meetings have taken place, including those between the Registrant and his peers and with the Occupational Therapy Area Manager and other meetings with Occupational Therapists in Devon; at which the Registrant has learnt of new procedures, updates and other changes to professional practice.
41. The Registrant explained that he has kept his Line Manager and Preceptor informed of this fitness to practise case and its developments throughout and in his most recent written reflections he explained that his discussions in those meetings had allowed him to reflect on the seriousness of his misconduct.
42. The Panel has seen two testimonials from VM, Social Worker and the Registrant’s Line Manager. The first of those is dated 22 May 2024 and VM writes that she has never “had cause to doubt Ben’s honesty and integrity”, there has been positive feedback from service users about his work, and he is a valued member of the team. In the further testimonial dated 2 October 2025, VM wrote positively about his integrity and stated that in the two and a half years that she has supervised the Registrant he has never given her cause to doubt his “honesty and truthfulness”; and that “when things do not go as planned” in his work, he is “open, transparent and honest.”
43. The Panel has also seen a written testimonial dated 30 September 2025 from ER, Advanced Occupational Therapist Practitioner for East Devon. The testimonial states that ER has no concerns about the Registrant’s honesty and integrity and the Registrant has been open with her when he has made mistakes in his care for patients, demonstrating a reflective approach to practice and performs well when under pressure at work.
44. The Registrant has undertaken CPD across a variety of practice areas and has produced a certificate of attendance for an online course of one and a half hours on 6 May 2024 dealing with probity and ethics for HCPC – registered professionals.
45. The Registrant has also attended regular counselling sessions to develop strategies for recognising and managing stress and has taken steps to ensure that his personal circumstances are stable and which, he told the Panel, they now are, while recognising that there will always be stresses in life. Those strategies include talking to others when he has concerns and seeking their support when necessary, and “to slow down and look at the greater picture.”
46. The Registrant’s first set of reflections dated 7 April 2023 were provided to the HCPC before the decision of the Investigating Committee that there was a case to answer. In that document, the Registrant accepted that by his actions he had failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a registered practitioner. He referred to his deep embarrassment and guilt at what he had done and stated that this was “an isolated unhappy event” that would never be repeated. The Panel was not persuaded that the Registrant’s resignation showed that he had any meaningful insight into his actions at that stage.
47. In his subsequent written reflections provided to the Panel, the Registrant developed his thinking about the implications of his actions. Most recently, he stated that he made no excuses for this behaviour and appreciated that he had put the reputation of the profession at risk. He stated that he was truly sorry for his misconduct but invited the Panel to conclude that he had reflected deeply and had rebuilt his integrity through consistent, honest and safe practice as an Occupational Therapist. These were themes that he also addressed in his oral evidence.
48. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions were remediable. Whilst dishonesty is difficult to remediate, the Panel accepts that the Registrant has taken remedial action as a result of the various actions set out above which he has taken since he commenced employment as a Band 5 Occupational Therapist. These include the counselling undertaken and the measures put in place by the Registrant to avoid a repetition, undertaking relevant CPD and consistent work during his work for DCC and in his preceptorship, that has allowed him to develop his understanding of the essential importance of the ethical requirements of professional practice.
49. In considering the likelihood of repetition, insight is an important consideration. The Panel considered that the insight offered was genuine. The Registrant did not show that he understood all the implications of the potential harm that he could have caused had he worked as a Disability Assessor. However, he acknowledged that there was a risk to service users if he had continued to perform in that role in 2023, as well as the damage to public confidence in the profession caused by his conduct. The Registrant had also acknowledged his wrongdoing at a very early stage and had admitted the factual particulars of the case against him.
50. Despite those observations, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant has shown meaningful and substantial insight, which together with his remedial actions render a repetition of the misconduct unlikely. The Registrant understands that his misconduct was completely unacceptable and fell far below the professional standards required of him and he now understands the key importance of honesty and integrity in registered practice and how to avoid any recurrence of the misconduct.
51. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition of the misconduct is low. In conclusion, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired by reference to the ‘personal’ component.
52. Next, the Panel is called on to consider the ‘public’ component of impairment. The first element of the public component - the need to protect service users - overlaps with the personal component. The Registrant has insight and is unlikely to repeat his past acts and does not present an ongoing or future risk to service users.
53. However, the other two elements of the public component are maintaining professional standards and public confidence in the profession concerned.
54. The public needs to have confidence in the registrants who treat them and it is entitled to expect registrants to be not only professionally competent but to act with honesty and integrity.
55. The key question to be answered here is, given the nature of the allegation and the facts found proved, would public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment?
56. The Registrant has taken meaningful and effective steps to avoid a future repetition of the misconduct and there has been no repetition of it in the period since March 2023 and no evidence of unsafe practice.
57. The Panel acknowledges that the misconduct occurred in acute circumstances affecting the Registrant’s private and family life.
58. However, the Registrant knew at the time that his actions were wrong. His wholly dishonest conduct in applying for and taking the post of Disability Assessor posed a real risk to the health and safety of the public as a result of his want of the basic experience required to perform that role, with the real prospect of harm to service users, as the Panel has already explained, and to other members of the public. Members of the public would be appalled to learn that the Registrant had so dishonestly put himself into the position of being able to carry out the disability assessments that are so important to the health, safety and wellbeing of those concerned.
59. By bringing the profession into disrepute in this manner in disregard of fundamental principles of registered practice, the Panel has concluded that despite the matters in favour of the Registrant, a finding of impaired fitness to practise is necessary to uphold professional standards so as to show that this sort of very serious misconduct is completely unacceptable. A finding of impairment is, in all the circumstances, necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and so as to prevent the undermining of that public confidence and its regulation.
60. The Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in relation to the ‘public’ component.
61. For those reasons, the Panel has decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
Decision on Sanction
62. The Panel received no further evidence at this stage of the hearing. The Panel received written and oral submissions from Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC and Mrs Keats on behalf of the Registrant. The following is a summary of those submissions.
63. Ms Collins based her submissions on the HCPC Sanctions Policy, March 2019 (‘the Sanctions Policy’) and identified the sanctions for the Panel’s consideration. However, Ms Collins advocated no particular sanction. She referred to what she submitted to be the mitigating and aggravating factors and submitted that in assessing the seriousness of the dishonesty, the Panel may consider it appropriate to bear in mind the two-month period over which the misconduct took place and the varying methods by which it was carried out, so that there is a pattern of dishonesty rather than a one-off or isolated event.
64. Ms Collins referred to the section of the Sanctions Policy entitled Serious Cases (paragraphs 56-58 in particular) and to “the several months this dishonest conduct took place over, the various methods used and multiple persons they were directed to. The [P]anel may note the active role and lengths the Registrant has gone to in some cases to mislead namely amending official documents or drafting emails … setting up a false email account. The Panel will note admissions were made to dishonesty at the beginning of the FTP proceedings, but that dishonesty was not admitted to Advo Health when questions were asked, instead, he resigned on the basis he could no longer fit the criteria required.”
65. In conclusion, Ms Collins submitted that the primary function of a sanction is to protect the public. This includes future risk, as well as the deterrent effect on other registrants, and maintaining public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.
66. On behalf of the Registrant, Mrs Keats submitted that the Registrant accepts in full the findings of the Panel to this stage. She referred to the Panel’s findings on the personal component of impairment, which she submitted to be highly relevant to the issue of sanction.
67. Mrs Keats submitted that the Registrant accepts that his misconduct must be marked in order to maintain public confidence and to demonstrate that dishonesty of this nature is unacceptable. However, that the seriousness of the misconduct has already been clearly recognised by a number of the Panel’s findings, including its findings of dishonesty and misconduct, its finding of current impairment on the public component; and the detailed reasoning contained within the Panel’s decision. An informed and fair-minded member of the public would understand that his conduct has been subject to serious and careful regulatory scrutiny through the fitness to practise process.
68. Mrs Keats referred to four other decisions of HCPTS fitness to practise panels, namely HCPC v Shane Williams (06.05.25), HCPC v Troy Butler (17.11.25), HCPC v Leo Hare (24.06.25) and HCPC v Reymund Enteria (19.03.25). She acknowledged that each case turns on its own facts and the Panel was not being invited to draw direct comparisons between those cases and the present case.
69. Mrs Keats submitted a primary position on sanction, which was that a caution would appropriately balance the need to mark seriousness with the Panel’s findings as to remediation, insight and current fitness to practise. She accepted that the Panel may wish to consider whether a more restrictive sanction is required. Mrs Keats pointed to the public interest in allowing the Registrant, a competent practitioner, to return to work and continue in his current role, for which (so she informed the Panel) it had taken two years for DCC to find a suitable practitioner.
70. However, Mrs Keats submitted that conditions of practice would not be appropriate in this case and that suspension is generally reserved for cases where public protection or public confidence cannot otherwise be maintained. She submitted that in view of the Panel’s findings that the Registrant is not impaired by reference to the personal component and poses no ongoing risk to service users, suspension may go further than is necessary to achieve the regulatory objectives in this case. Mrs Keats submitted that the dishonesty, though committed during the period of January – March 2023 took place as two clusters of conduct. In all the circumstances, she submitted a caution order to be the fair, proportionate and necessary sanction in this case.
71. In making its decision on the issue of sanction, the Panel has taken into account its findings in the case to this stage, the evidence so far as relevant to the issue of sanction, all the submissions for the parties and the advice given by the Legal Assessor at this stage, which it accepted.
72. The Sanctions Policy identifies the purposes of sanctions as follows:
“10. The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public. The considerations in this regard include:
• any risks the registrant might pose to those who use or need their services;
• the deterrent effect on other registrants;
• public confidence in the profession concerned; and
• public confidence in the regulatory process.
11. Sanctions are not intended to punish registrants, but instead ensure the public is protected. Inevitably, a sanction may be punitive in effect, but should not be imposed simply for that purpose.”
73. The Panel is also required to apply the yardstick of proportionality to its decision-making. The Sanctions Policy states:
“20. In making proportionate decisions on sanction, panels need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public ... Therefore, decisions should deal with the concerns raised, but be fair, just and reasonable.
21. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive. Panels should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected…”
74. In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel is required to take into account and appropriately weigh the mitigating and aggravating features of the misconduct as set out in the relevant paragraphs of the Sanctions Policy.
75. The Sanctions Policy (paragraph 25) also makes clear that matters of mitigation are likely to be of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings, where the overarching concern is the protection of the public, than to a court imposing retributive justice. The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel to similar effect, referring to the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 at 518 and 519.
76. The Panel considered the following to be mitigating factors in the case. The Registrant has no previous fitness to practise findings against him with the HCPC. No patients were harmed as a result of the Registrant’s actions. The misconduct was committed in the context of acute personal circumstances, [redacted].
77. Further mitigating factors are the following. The insight shown by the Registrant (see paragraphs 44 and 45 of this decision) constitutes a recognition of the concerns raised and an understanding by the Registrant of the potential impact of his actions. Although the Panel did not consider his insight to extend to all the implications of the potential harm his actions could have caused, he had acknowledged that there was a risk to service users if he had continued to perform as a Disability Assessor for Advo Health in 2023, as well as the damage to public confidence in the profession caused by his conduct (paragraph 49). The Registrant has also shown genuine remorse for his misconduct.
78. The Registrant has undertaken appropriate and extensive remediation (see paragraph 48 of this decision).
79. The Panel has found that the Registrant has taken meaningful and effective steps to avoid a future repetition of the misconduct, there has been no repetition of it in the period since March 2023 and that the risk of a repetition of the misconduct is low (paragraphs 51 and 56 of this decision).
80. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors in the case.
81. The Panel refers to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Sanctions Policy. The dishonesty was elaborate, repeated and committed towards different people. It was a course of conduct involving an initial dishonest provision of a CV on 13 January 2023 and the further steps taken on and around 9 and 10 March 2023 in the further dishonest attempts by the Registrant to secure his employment with Advo Health.
82. The dishonesty also consisted of a number of steps, including provision of a CV with falsified key information, the creation of a bogus email account, the writing and sending of a false employment reference from that account, the concoction of, and reliance on, a fabricated HCPC Letter of Good Standing to mislead his employer and engaged in further communications with the HCPC to mislead it as to his registration history (see paragraph 30 of this decision).
83. The dishonesty also involved a breach of trust towards the HCPC and Advo Health (paragraphs 45 - 47 of the Sanctions Policy). The HCPC should be able to trust registrants to provide accurate information to the best of their knowledge and belief. As to Advo Health, it should have been able to trust the Registrant to provide accurate information to enable it to fill the role of Disability Assessor.
84. The misconduct also had the potential to cause considerable harm (paragraph 31 of this decision).
85. Although the Panel has concluded that the Registrant resigned from his post at Advo Health because he had been caught out, he did not (as others in his situation might have done) aggravate the situation by staying on and working in a post which he was not qualified to fill. The Panel did not consider his resignation to be an aggravating factor, therefore.
86. The Panel approached the question of sanction by considering the least restrictive sanction available to it first and moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to fulfil the purpose of sanctions.
87. The Panel considered the case to be too serious to justify ‘no action’.
88. Mediation is not a relevant outcome to a case of this nature.
89. The Panel next considered a caution order, which may be from one to five years.
90. The Sanctions Policy states the following, namely:
“100. Where a panel finds that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the least restrictive sanction that can be applied is a caution order.
101. A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.
102. A caution order should be considered in cases where the nature of the allegations mean that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a suspension of practice order would be disproportionate. In these cases, panels should provide a clear explanation of why it has chosen a non-restrictive sanction, even though the panel may have found there to be a risk of repetition (albeit low).”
91. An assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct is required. The Panel refers to the following considerations in the Sanctions Policy, namely:
“56. The Standards of conduct, performance and ethics require registrants to be honest and trustworthy (Standard 9). Dishonesty undermines public confidence in the profession and can, in some cases, impact the public’s safety.
57. Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety. It is likely to lead to more serious sanctions. The following are illustrations of such dishonesty:
• …;
• providing untruthful information in job applications (perhaps misleading the prospective employer about experience, training or skills gained);
• … ;
• fraud …
58. Given the seriousness of dishonesty, cases are likely to result in more serious sanctions. However, panels should bear in mind that there are different forms, and different degrees, of dishonesty, that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that panels should take into account in this regard include:
• whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act, or occurred on multiple occasions;
• the duration of any dishonesty;
• whether the registrant took a passive or active role in it;
• any early admission of dishonesty on the registrant’s behalf; and
• any other relevant mitigating factors.”
92. The Panel has reminded itself of its earlier conclusions, in particular those in paragraphs 26-32, 37-51, 58, 59, 76,77 and 81-83 of this decision.
93. The misconduct was very serious and was not “… limited, or minor in nature” as set out in paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy.
94. However, in view of the findings it has made, the Panel does consider that the misconduct was ‘isolated’ for the purposes of that paragraph. The misconduct took place in January and March 2023 concerning a job application. There has been no repetition of the misconduct since or any other dishonest conduct on the part of the Registrant.
95. The Panel bore in mind in the context of paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy that in view of its findings so far, there is a low risk of repetition, the Registrant has shown good insight and has undertaken appropriate remediation.
96. In the light of paragraph 102 of the Sanctions Policy, in its deliberations about a caution order the Panel has considered whether a suspension order would be disproportionate. That is because conditions of practice are not appropriate in a case such as the present. No workable conditions could be devised to address the attitudinal concerns that characterise dishonesty.
97. The Sanctions Policy states the following with respect to suspension:
“121. A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
•there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.
…
123. … short-term suspensions can have long-term consequences for a registrant (including being dismissed from their current employment) …
124. Short-term suspensions can also be appropriate in cases where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where further action is required in order to maintain public confidence in our professions.”
98. The Panel observes that for the purposes of paragraph 121, the concerns represented a (very) serious breach of the Standards, the Registrant has insight and the issues are unlikely to be repeated. However, the Registrant has already resolved his failings, as opposed to being likely to be able to do so.
99. Standing back, the Panel has considered whether a caution order would suffice to address the public protection issues at stake or whether a more serious sanction is required.
100. The Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute, breaching fundamental tenets of the profession. His dishonesty was calculated, very serious, included a breach of trust towards both his prospective employer and to the HCPC, his regulator, and had the potential to cause serious harm to members of the public.
101. The Panel’s task in the present case (there being no risk of repetition of the misconduct) is to identify a sanction that suffices to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold standards of conduct among members of the profession.
102. The Panel has made serious findings against the Registrant, that his actions were completely unacceptable, breached fundamental tenets of the profession, brought the profession into disrepute and constituted professional misconduct. The Panel has also found that a finding of impaired fitness to practise has been necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of professional conduct.
103. Another aspect of the public interest is where a registrant can provide a useful public service to society as a competent practitioner. A suspension order would deprive members of the public of the services of the Registrant, who is clearly such a practitioner.
104. A suspension, even of a short period, may result in the termination of a practitioner’s employment. However, a suspension, up to the maximum of 12 months, may be necessary to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards.
105. A caution order is a serious sanction that may be imposed for a period from one to five years.
106. The Panel has borne in mind the more limited role of personal mitigation in fitness to practise cases and has given the mitigation in this case due weight, to explain the context of the misconduct while not excusing it to any degree, the extensive and sufficient remedial steps taken by the Registrant, his remorse and the dedication he has since shown to the profession.
107. The Panel has concluded that in view of the (to be made public) findings of professional misconduct and impairment that it has made against the Registrant, the reasons it has given for those findings and all the circumstances of the case, a caution order of four years would have the necessary deterrent effect on other registrants, maintain public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process, so as to uphold and declare proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
108. The Panel considers that the period of four years for the caution order is a necessary but sufficient mark of the seriousness of the misconduct.
109. As part of its deliberations, the Panel concluded that in the circumstances, a suspension order, even for a short period, would be a disproportionate response to the impairment.
110. In reaching its decision, the Panel found no assistance from decisions of other HCPTS fitness to practise panels.
Order
ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Benjamin Slocombe with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 4 years from the date this order comes into effect.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Benjamin Slocombe
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23/01/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Caution |
| 08/01/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Hearing is ongoing |