Soraya Jurado Gonzalez

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.          The Panel was shown an unredacted copy of the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC Register which contained her registered email address. It was also shown an unredacted email dated 16 September 2025 sent by the HCPTS to the Registrant at her registered email address, and copied to her legal representative, Mr Godric Jolliffe of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. This email gave notice of the date and time of the hearing and that it was to be conducted virtually.   An unredacted email of the same date confirmed delivery of the notice of hearing email to the Registrant at her registered email address.

2.          The Panel received and accepted legal advice.  It was satisfied based on the documentation it had seen that the Registrant had been served with proper notice of the hearing in accordance with the relevant rules.
Proceed in the absence of the Registrant

3.          Ms Danti applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.  Ms Danti reminded the Panel of the admissions made by the Registrant in the Notice to Admit Facts & Witness Statements document and in the signed Consent Order which were repeated in Mr Jolliffe’s email to the HCPTS dated 6 January 2026.   Ms Danti submitted that in his email, Mr Jolliffe had made it clear that the Registrant consented to the hearing proceeding in her absence. 

4.          Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing and had not made an application for an adjournment.  Ms Danti submitted that it was in the public interest to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as hearings should be conducted expeditiously.  Ms Danti submitted that it would not be in the public interest or fair to the HCPC for the proceedings to be adjourned and further that an adjournment would not secure the Registrant’s attendance at a later date.  Ms Danti submitted that all the relevant factors suggested that it would be disproportionate not to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

5.          The Panel received and accepted legal advice, and it followed the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the absence of the registrant”. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had received notice of the hearing. It noted that in his email to the HCPTS dated 6 January 2026, Mr Jolliffe had stated “The Registrant intends no disrespect to the Panel but she will not be attending the hearing, or be represented.  She is content for the hearing to take place in her absence, provided that the submissions in this email are considered by the Panel”.

6.          The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had made a deliberate and informed decision to absent herself from the hearing and had therefore waived her right to attend. The Panel was satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the hearing as it was unlikely the Registrant would attend at a later date.  The Panel was satisfied, given the Registrant’s signed admissions and the agreement to the making of a Consent Order, that there was no disadvantage to the case proceeding in her absence. The Panel therefore decided that it was in the interests of all parties for the case proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to amend the Allegation

7.          Ms Danti applied to amend the Allegation so that it more clearly set out the HCPC’s case and reflected the evidence it proposed to call.  Ms Danti confirmed that the Registrant had been put on notice of the proposed amendments and that, on 1 November 2025, Mr Jolliffe had confirmed that there were no objections to them.  Ms Danti reminded the Panel that in the signed Notice to Admit Facts and Witness Statements document dated 15 December 2025 the Registrant had admitted both the originally worded Allegation and the proposed amended Allegation.

8.          Ms Danti submitted that the proposed amendments could be made without prejudice to the Registrant or any unfairness as the Registrant was legally represented, the proposed amendments did not alter the substance of the allegation but better particularised it, and the proposed amendments allow for Article 22 (1) (b) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (“the 2001 Order”) to be accurately reflected in the drafting of the Allegation. 

9.          The Panel received and accepted legal advice.  It was satisfied that the Registrant had received notice of the proposed amendments and that she did not oppose them.  This was clear from paragraph 1 of a signed Consent Order which read, “The Parties agree that: 1. The allegation against the Registrant be amended to read as follows ….”. 

10.       The Panel also noted that the Registrant had made admissions to both the original Allegation and to the proposed amended Allegation in a ‘Notice to Admit Facts & Witness Statements’ document dated 15 December 2025 and signed on behalf of the Registrant by Mr Jolliffe. 

11.       The Panel considered that the proposed amendments clarified the HCPC’s case and better reflected the evidence that the HCPC proposed to call.  It was satisfied that the proposed amendments did not cause any prejudice to the Registrant or result in any unfairness in the proceedings.   Accordingly, the Panel granted the HCPC’s application to amend the Allegation.

Background

12.       The Registrant is a registered Physiotherapist.   On 7 April 2020, the Registrant applied for registration with the HCPC, including a certificate of her degree course in physiotherapy from a university in Spain, her mark list and a brief outline of the courses she had taken.

13.       On 9 July 2020, the HCPC’s Education and Training Committee (“ETC”) informed the Registrant that she was required to complete a period of adaptation in order for her to be eligible for registration.   The period of adaptation required was the completion of three separate supervised clinical placements, each of six weeks duration, in three areas of physiotherapy practice.

14.       On 3 April 2023, the Registrant began a period of adaptation placement at Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (“the Trust”) in the Musculoskeletal Outpatients Department.  At that time, the Registrant’s Clinical Educator was Witness 1 (“HW”) who was a registered physiotherapist.

15.       At the end of the adaptation period HW completed various documents, including a Certificate of Completion and a Period of Adaptation Assessment Form.  Within the Certificate of Completion, HW stated:
“I am not satisfied that the applicant, having undertaken that adaptation period, now meets the relevant standards of proficiency”.

16.       On or around 21 July 2023, the Registrant submitted an adaptation period completion form and other documentation to the HCPC.  As the documents appeared to be ‘mixed up’, the Registrant was asked by the HCPC to re-submit them.  She did so on 28 July 2023.

17.       On or around 29 September 2023, the Registrant’s adaptation period was approved by the HCPC.

18.       On or around 2 October 2023, to complete the application process, the Registrant submitted a verification form from her employer to the HCPC.

19.       On or around 11 December 2023, the HCPC informed the Registrant that she had obtained registration with the HCPC.

20.       Following the Registrant’s entry onto the Register, the HCPC became aware that the Registrant had not been signed off as demonstrating the required standards of proficiency at the Trust, despite the submitted documentation suggesting otherwise.

21.       The HCPC investigated the matter.  On or around 18 March 2024, the HCPC received an email from the Registrant in response to enquiries made by the HCPC into her time at the Trust.   The Registrant admitted having been dishonest and stated:
“[…] They said that H.W report was to send to HCPC without editing, but I couldn’t sent [sic] that as my self-assessment was uncompleted and her feedback unfair, more related to personality clashes rather than professional judgment.  Therefore, I must admit I modified it, out of desperation, fear, anxiety and panic”.
“I would like to apologise HCPC [sic] for my behaviour and dishonest act”.

22.       Following completion of its investigation and preparation of the case, the HCPC wrote to the Registrant advising that the matter would be considered at a hearing before a panel of the Investigating Committee under Article 26 (7) of the 2001 Order.

Decision on Facts

23.       In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel considered all the evidence in the case. It received and accepted legal advice, and it considered the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.   The Panel was aware that the burden of proof was on the HCPC throughout, and that the Allegation had to be proved to the civil standard.

Evidence

24.       The Panel was provided with a bundle of documents totalling 176 pdf pages which included the witness statements of the HCPC’s two witnesses (HW and HM) and documentary exhibits including:
                         i.          a request to approve provider form dated 16 March 2023.
                       ii.           a period of adaptation assessment form dated 12 May 2023.
                      iii.          Gibbs prompts for structured debriefing form – undated.
                     iv.          Clinical supervisor record sheet dated 19 April 2023.
                       v.          Certificate of completion form dated 12 May 2023.
                     vi.          Certificate of completion (version 2) dated 12 May 2023.
                    vii.           a period of adaptation assessment form (version 2) dated 12 May 2023,
                  viii.          a supervision feedback form – April 2023.
                     ix.          email from DW to the Registrant dated 24 May 2023.
                       x.          the Registrant’s supporting documents for HCPC registration.
                     xi.          HCPC letter to the Registrant dated 7 July 2020.
                    xii.           email from Registrant to the HCPC dated 28 July 2023.
                  xiii.          email from Registrant to the HCPC dated 2 October 2023.
                  xiv.          email from HCPC to Registrant dated 11 December 2023 confirming registration.
                   xv.          email from the Registrant to HCPC dated 18 March 2024.
                  xvi.          a signed Consent Order – December 2025
                xvii.           a signed Notice to Admit Facts and Witness Statements dated 15 December 2025.

Admissions

25.       Prior to the start of the hearing, the Panel was provided with two signed documents in which the Registrant admitted the Allegation:

(i)    An undated Consent Order signed on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant in which the Registrant admitted the amended Allegation in full.
(ii)   A ‘Notice to Admit Facts & Witness Statements’ dated 15 December 2025 in which the Registrant admitted both the original Allegation and the amended Allegation.  

26.       The Panel was satisfied, having received and accepted legal advice and considering the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Admissions”, that at the time the Registrant made the admissions set out in the ‘Notice to Admit Facts & Witness Statements’ document and in the Consent Order, she had been legally represented. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions were therefore considered and informed. In these circumstances, the Panel decided to accept the Registrant’s admissions and to rely on them when deciding the matters alleged against her. 
HW

27.       HW was called to give evidence.  She identified her witness statement and confirmed that, subject to one amendment relating to her current employment, the contents of the statement were true to the best of her knowledge and belief.  The Panel agreed that HW’s witness statement could stand as her evidence in chief.  Ms Danti did not ask HW any supplementary questions. 

28.       In her witness statement, HW told the Panel that she had been a registered Physiotherapist since July 2019.   At the material time she had been employed as a Band 6 Rotational Physiotherapist at the Trust.  HW said that in that role, she saw patients from a musculoskeletal and pelvic health perspective and attended service training.  HW said she was also a clinical educator to students and liaised with different members of the multidisciplinary teams.

29.       HW said that on 3 April 2023 she had become the Clinical Educator for the Registrant whilst she was on a placement with the Trust.  HW had worked with the Registrant every day on a full-time basis from Tuesdays to Fridays, having Mondays off.   HW explained that her role at a Clinical Educator was to observe the Registrant at work, supervising her, managing her workload, reviewing her documentation and patient notes and providing teaching during her adaptation period.  HW said that she had observed the Registrant seeing patients and had allocated her work which she felt the Registrant was capable to do without her supervision. 

30.       HW said that the Registrant started an adaptation period at the Trust in April 2023 and explained that an adaptation period was designed for professionals who want to be admitted to the HCPC Register having obtained a qualification, such as a physiotherapy degree, which is not recognised in the United Kingdom (“UK”).   An adaptation period allows a person to convert their qualification into one which is recognised in the UK.  HW said that she was aware that the Registrant had found her placement very challenging and that this had caused certain frustrations.

31.       HW explained some of the relevant paperwork required by the HCPC to the Panel.  This included a Request to approve provider form which was required prior to the start of the Registrant’s adaptation period.

32.       HW told the Panel that at the end of the adaptation period, she had completed certain documentation including a ‘period of adaptation assessment form’, ‘a Gibbs’ prompt for structured debriefing form’, and a ‘clinical supervision record sheet’. HW produced copies of these documents for the Panel. 

33.       HW explained that the ‘period of adaptation assessment form’ details how an applicant is assessed during the placement confirming whether they are meeting the HCPC standards of proficiency and marking them against these standards and stating whether they were able to demonstrate that during the placement. 

34.       HW said that a ‘SWOC analysis' (which relates to Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges) is to be completed prior to starting the placement and should be filled out to help the applicant and the clinical educator to identify what the applicant is good at and any areas where they require support.  It also identifies specific opportunities the applicant wants to seek from the placement which allows for the placement to plan accordingly and the possible outcome of the placement.

35.       HW said that the Registrant had filled in a ‘Personal Development Plan” (“PDP”) which is like the SWOC and sets out specific learning goals for the placement.   HW explained that a PDP is a reflection on the learning goals throughout the placement to make sure that the Registrant was achieving them.  HW said that in the halfway section of the PDP, the Registrant was meant to come back and look at the goals and aims to see how she was doing, whether she had achieved them or what she needed to do to achieve them by the end of the placement.

36.       HW said that at three weeks into the placement, she had asked the Registrant to include her reflections within her PDP. However, the Registrant had declined to share these with HW.  This was noted on the PDP in red. HW said that to ensure that the Registrant was fully supported and able to achieve her goals within 6 weeks of her placement, they would have expected the Registrant to share her reflections as these are part of the marking scheme.  HW confirmed that she had completed the sections in the section marked ‘halfway comments and action planning’ which indicated which standards of proficiency the Registrant was starting to demonstrate and those areas where she was not yet managing to do so. 

37.       HW said that within parts 1 to 4 of the PDP she had marked in red those areas where the Registrant had not achieved a satisfactory level of practice.  HW said that the Registrant was informed multiple times during the placement about this at their regular supervision meetings where they went over what the Registrant was not doing and what needed improving on.  HW said that feedback was also provided after every patient session in relation to the goals and learning aims.

38.       HW told the Panel that she had also recorded the Registrant’s clinical hours completed and absences as an official record of the number of clinical hours completed at the Trust on her 6-week placement.  HW said that during the 6-week placement there had been Easter bank holidays and that the Registrant had had many days off due to sickness.  HW said that the Registrant had also declined to turn up on the last day of her placement.  HW said that as the Registrant had lost clinical hours and it was considered that 171 hours may not be enough, the Registrant had been offered to make up those hours after the end of her normal placement time.  HW said the Registrant had declined the offer.   HW said that it was her experience that an average of around 200 hours should be completed but accepted that it might be different between return to work and university placements. HW said that for the allotted time of the placement, it had been expected that the Registrant would have worked 37.5 hours a week for 6 weeks.  HW accepted that the Registrant may not have thought it was necessary to make up the hours. 

39.       HW said that she had completed the ‘final comments’ section of the PDP and had asked a colleague to check it for her.  HW said that on the day before the placement ended, the Registrant had requested to go through her final feedback.  HW said she had told the Registrant that this was not possible as there were patients booked in.  HW said that she had told the Registrant that if they finished early, they could go through the feedback.  Otherwise, they could go through the feedback the following day as time had been allocated for that. 

40.       HW said that the Registrant had said she was not going to come in the following day to do that, and when advised by HW that she should turn up for the final day of her placement, the Registrant had said “well, I can’t”.

41.       HW said that she had filled out a “Gibbs’ prompts for structured briefing form” and had noted in red that the Registrant did not share any written reflections with her, despite being asked on multiple occasions to demonstrate her abilities to reflect or to share with HW some evidence that she had been reflecting on the placement in general, a specific topic she had learnt or any training.  HW said that the Registrant had not done so.

42.       HW confirmed that she had completed a clinical supervision record sheet.

43.       In relation to the Certificate of Completion form, HW said that on 12 May 2023 she had completed this in relation to the Registrant’s period of adaptation.  HW explained that a Certificate of Completion form is given after the placement is finished to certify that an applicant has completed a placement. The form is meant to signify that an applicant has completed certain tasks and goals in line with their HCPC registration to a satisfactory standard, or that an applicant has just completed their time at the Trust.  

44.           HW said that to successfully complete an adaptation period, there are standards of proficiency that the Registrant was required to meet.  HW said that in Part B of the Certificate of Completion she had explained in red that the Registrant had not shared a completed Part B as the time of submission. HW said that the table in Part B should have been completed containing the elements or activities of the adaptation period which were undertaken by the Registrant.  HW told the Panel that the Registrant did not fill this part in when she had asked the Registrant to send the documentation over and said that the Registrant did not want to share it with her as she felt it was private. 

45.           HW said that she had explained to the Registrant that for her to mark and complete the form, she would need to see the completed section, but that the Registrant had continually declined to do so.  HW said that because of this she did not sign the Registrant off as she was not satisfied that she had met the relevant standards of proficiency having undertaken the period of adaptation at the Trust.

46.           HW said that subsequently she had been provided with three documents and asked whether she had completed them and, if not, which sections of these documents she had not completed herself.

47.           The first document was a Certificate of Completion dated 12 May 2023.  HW confirmed that she did not write what is included in the document, nor did she sign it or say that she was satisfied that the Registrant had met the relevant standards of proficiency having undertaken the period of adaptation. HW said that having compared the Certificate of Completion which she had signed and the second Certificate of Completion which she had been shown, she could see that her comments in red in Part B were not included in the version that she had been shown. 

48.           The second document was an HCPC period of adaptation assessment form dated 12 May 2023. HW compared this with the period of adaptation assessment form of the same date which she had prepared.  HW said that on the first page of the form she had been shown, the SWOC analysis, the PDP, the halfway comments section, the reflecting on my learning section and the final comments section, had been changed or added by someone else.  HW also confirmed that she had not completed pages 1 – 4 of the PDP.  HW also noted that the record of clinical hours had also been altered and CPD (Continuing Professional Development) had been added.  HW said that a line she had written in the period of adaption assessment form which she had completed about the Registrant having declined clinical hours, had been removed and her review of smart goals and the records of techniques sessions were missing from the form she had been shown.

49.           The third document was a “supervision feedback” form dated 19 April 2023.  HW confirmed that she had not completed this document and was unaware who did. HW said that the topics discussed in the document were verbal feedback given to the Registrant during her placement, but HW could not be sure if this had been given on the dates set out in the document as feedback is given multiple times a day and every time a patient is seen. HW said that this document would have counted as a written reflection and was of a type she had expected to have seen from the Registrant. HW confirmed that she had never seen this document before it was shown to her and that it had not formed part of the original HCPC adaptation assessment form which she had filled out. 

50.           HW said that after the Registrant’s placement had ended, so around 15 May 2023, she had received an email from the Registrant requesting a copy of her feedback form urgently HW said she had told the Registrant that it would be provided as soon as it was completed.  HW explained that as she no longer worked at the Trust, she could not produce copies of this email correspondence. 

51.           In answer to questions from the Panel, HW said the documents she had been shown and referred to in her witness statement as her exhibits HW 6, 7 and 8 (a Certificate of Completion, a period of adaptation assessment form and a supervision feedback form respectively), had been shown to her by the HCPC.  HW said that she had not been told where they had come from.  She had simply been shown the documents and asked if she had completed them. 
 
HM

52.       In her witness statement, HM told the Panel that she had been working as Operations Manager at the HCPC International Registrations Department since 28 October 2024.  HM said that her main responsibility in that role was to oversee the international process and lead the teams within that area.

53.       HM said that on 7 April 2020, the Registrant submitted a paper application form to be registered with the HCPC together with supporting documentation, including a certificate of her degree in physiotherapy from a university in Spain and her mark list, and a brief outline of the courses she had taken.  HM said that although the HCPC had a record of the Registrant’s application number (AA722129), she had been unable to locate the Registrant’s paper application form. 

54.       HM said that on 9 July 2020, the Registrant was sent a letter by the HCPC’s Registrations Department in relation to the Registrant’s HCPC application for registration based on her European Professional Card (“EPC”).  An EPC stemmed from a mutual agreement between the UK and Europe (and certain other countries) prior to Brexit which allowed for people applying for registration from Europe or from certain other countries, to have an opportunity to undertake a period of adaptation prior to registration.

55.       HM said before being eligible for registration, holders of an EPC were required to undertake an initial assessment so that any significant gaps in practice to the required standards could be identified. In the Registrant’s case, the initial assessment identified certain standards to be outstanding, and to meet those the Registrant would need to work under the supervision of a registered professional in the same profession (physiotherapy) for her to gain the skills relevant to meet the standards originally identified as ‘unmet’. HM said that the Registrations Department proposed that the Registrant undertake a period of adaptation. 

56.       HM told the Panel that on 21 July 2023, the Registrant submitted to the HCPC an adaptation period completion form, together with several other documents.  However, as these documents appeared to be mixed up, the HCPC asked the Registrant to resend them, which she did on 28 July 2023.

57.       HM said that the Registrant’s adaptation period was approved on 29 September 2023, and she was required to submit a verification from her employer to complete the application process.  The verification form was to confirm the Registrant’s employment at one of the NHS Trusts for a period of time.  The Registrant sent the verification form to the HCPC by email on 2 October 2023.

58.       HM said that on 11 December 2023, the HCPC emailed the Registrant to confirm that she had been obtained registration with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist. 

Particular 1 - was found proved

59.       The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities, based on the Registrant’s admission set out in both the signed ‘Notice to Admit Facts and Witness Statement’ document, which set out the three documents referred to in Schedule A, and the Consent Order, that Particular 1 was proved.  

60.       The Panel also relied on the Registrant’s admissions set out in her email to the HCPC dated 18 March 2024 in which she referred to email correspondence she had with DW, the Trust’s AHP Workforce and Education Lead and Emergency Clinical Practitioner (Chartered Physiotherapist) about HW’s final report.  In her email, the Registrant said,
“I sent [DW] an email appealing and writing evidence of how I disagreed with that decision, but he replied that HCPC should decide now.  I thought the treatment was unjust and no support was given.  They said that H.W report was to send to HCPC without editing, but I couldn’t sent [sic] that as my self-assessment was uncompleted and her feedback unfair, more related to personality clashes rather than professional judgement.  Therefore, I must admit I modified it, out of desperation, fear, anxiety and panic.
….I am completely aware and responsible for my acts.  I understand that modifying the supervisor’s feedback may cause consequences for my registration and I take full responsibility of this.  ….. However, I take responsibility of being dishonest and I will bear the consequence that the HCPC decides to take action upon… I would like to apologise HCPC for my behaviour and dishonest act.”.

61.       The Panel was satisfied, in the absence of direct evidence of the provenance of the documents set out in Schedule A, that it could properly infer that these documents were submitted by the Registrant to the HCPC’s ETC department as part of her application for registration with the HCPC. 

62.       The Panel had seen an email dated 28 July 2023 from the Registrant to the HCPC’s ETC department in response to an email from the ETC for her to resend the documentation, which stated,
“Please find the approval forms on the first attachment. 
Please find also attached the completion forms: 3 attachments.  NEURO, MKS, CARDIO-RESPIRATORY”.

63.       The Panel noted that there were 3 attachments to the email “Adaptation-period-request to approve provider.docx; Neuro COMPLITION FORMS HCPS.zip; RespiCOMPLITION FORMS HCPC.zip.”  The Panel therefore considered it proper to infer that within these attachments were the three documents set out in Schedule A.  

64.       The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC ETC department had relied on the documentation submitted by the Registrant in approving her entry on the register. 

65.       The Panel also relied on the evidence of HW that each of the Schedule A documents had not been completed by her. 

66.       It accepted HW’s evidence that she had not signed the Certificate of Completion document dated 12 May 2023 which was shown to her by the HCPC nor that she had said in it that she was satisfied the Registrant had met the relevant standards of proficiency having undertaken the period of adaptation at the Trust. The Panel accepted that HW had signed a Certificate of Completion on the same date (which she produced in evidence) in which she had stated the precise opposite, namely that she was not satisfied the Registrant had met the relevant standards of proficiency having undertaken the period of adaptation.   

67.       The Panel was therefore satisfied on HW’s evidence, on viewing both versions of the Certificate of Completion in the bundle, and on the Registrant’s admissions in the email of 18 March 2024, that the Registrant had amended the Certificate of Completion before it was sent to the HCPC in support of her application for registration.

68.       The Panel was also satisfied that when the Registrant made the amendments to the Certificate of Completion, she did so to fraudulently procure her entry to the HCPC register. The amendment was a deliberate and pre-meditated decision by the Registrant designed to mislead the HCPC as to her having met the relevant standards of proficiency required for registration as a physiotherapist when it was considering her application for registration.    

69.       The Panel accepted HW’s evidence that in the version of the ‘period of adaptation assessment’ form shown to her by the HCPC, certain of the sections, namely the first page, the SWOC analysis, the PDP, the halfway comments section, the reflecting on my learning section and the final comments section had been changed or added to by someone else and that she had not completed all the comments in parts 1 to 4 of the PDP.   The Panel also accepted HW’s evidence that the record of clinical hours had been altered, CPD hours added, a line she had written about clinical hours being declined by the Registrant had been removed, and the review of smart goals and the record of techniques sections was missing from the version of the form shown to her by the HCPC.  

70.       HW produced the version of the ‘period of adaptation assessment’ form which she had completed.  From this, the Panel could see that various amendments had been made in the version submitted to the HCPC.  The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant had amended the contents of this document before submitting it to the HCPC as part of her application for registration with the HCPC.  The Panel also relied on the Registrant’s admissions in her email of 18 March 2023 to the effect that documentation had been amended by her. 

71.       The Panel took the view that the amendments were the result of a deliberate and pre-meditated decision by the Registrant to mislead the HCPC as to HW’s assessment of her during the adaptation period with the Trust. It was satisfied therefore that the Registrant had fraudulently procured her entry on the HCPC register by amending the contents of this document. 

72.       The Panel accepted HW’s evidence that she was shown a ‘supervision feedback form’ dated 19 April 2023 by the HCPC and that she did not complete this form and that it did not form part of the original HCPC adaptation assessment form which she had filled out.   It also accepted HW’s evidence that the topics in the form had been verbally fed back to the Registrant but that she could not be sure of the dates of that verbal feedback. 

73.       The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had amended the contents of the ‘supervision feedback’ form by including as written feedback in a form purportedly completed by HW when it had not been albeit that the feedback might have been given verbally by HW but not necessarily on the dates recorded in the form.   The Panel noted that in her email of 18 March 2023, the Registrant had stated, “I understand that modifying the supervisor’s feedback may cause consequences for my registration and I take full responsibility of this”.   The Panel accepted that in this email, the Registrant was specifically admitting to having amended this document which was part of the documentation she had submitted to the HCPC as part of her application for registration.  

74.       The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had taken a deliberate and pre-meditated decision to amend the ‘supervision feedback’ form to mislead the HCPC that the form had been completed by HW when this was not the case.  It was satisfied therefore that the Registrant had fraudulently procured her entry on the HCPC register by amending the contents of this document. 

75.       Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1 of the Allegation proved.

Particular 2 – was found proved

76.       The Panel noted that Particular 2 was not alleged as an alternative to Particular 1.  The Panel had already decided that each of the three documents listed in Schedule A had been submitted by the Registrant to the HCPC as part of her application to be registered and had been amended by her so that each purported to have been completed by HW when this was not the case.

77.       The Panel considered that its findings that the Registrant had fraudulently procured her entry onto the HCPC’s register as a Physiotherapist by the submission of amended documentation purporting to have been completed by HW when this was not the case, inevitably led to the conclusion that the Registrant’s entry onto the HCPC Register was ‘incorrectly made’.

78.       The Panel therefore found Particular 2 of the Allegation proved.

Decision on Order

79.       The Panel was aware that under Article 26 (7) of the 2001 Order it had the power to make an order that the Registrar remove or amend the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC register.

Submissions

80.       Ms Danti referred the Panel to the signed Consent Order and invited the Panel to endorse it by ordering the Registrar to remove the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC register.   Ms Danti submitted that there was no other order which could be made in the circumstances of this case as the Registrant’s entry was not open to correction and there was no internal error within it.  Ms Danti submitted that as the Registrant’s entry should not have happened at all, the only option for the Panel was to order its removal.

81.       Although the Registrant was not present or represented at the hearing, written submissions were provided by Mr Jolliffe in his email dated 6 January 2026, as follows:
“The Registrant asks the Panel to endorse the Consent Order signed on her behalf by me”.

82.       In the Consent Order which was signed on an unknown date in December 2025 on behalf of both parties, the Registrant had agreed to her name being removed from the HCPC Register as follows:
“3.  The Panel should made an order requiring the Registrar to remove the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC Register and notify her of her right of appeal under article 28 [sic] of the Health Professions Order 2001”.

Decision

83.       The Panel considered the submissions of both parties.  It received and accepted legal advice.  It had in mind the HCPC’s overarching objective duty to protect the public, and the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the Physiotherapy profession and upholding its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel noted that the Registrant had agreed in the signed Consent Order to her name being removed from the HCPC register.  

84.       The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate action to take was to order that the Registrar remove the Registrant’s entry from the HCPC register.  It accepted Ms Danti’s submission that it was the only option available to it.  The Panel was satisfied that where, as here, the Registrant had not met the relevant standards of proficiency for registration as a physiotherapist and where the Registrant had not met the relevant standards of conduct by deliberately and fraudulently procuring her entry to the HCPC register, the only option was removal of that entry. 

85.       The Panel noted that the purpose of registering only those who are proficient to practice in a certain profession was to ensure that public confidence in that profession was maintained.  It was also to ensure that proper standards of conduct and behaviour were upheld.  The Panel was satisfied that a well informed and reasonable member of the public would expect a regulatory body to carry out appropriate checks before permitting a practitioner to achieve registration and to take appropriate action where an entry has been, as here, fraudulently procured.

86.       The Panel therefore decided to order the removal of the Registrant’s entry from the HCPC register.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Miss Soraya Jurado Gonzalez from the Register.

Interim Order
Application

1. Ms Danti applied for an interim order and invited the Panel to consider the application in the absence of the Registrant. Ms Danti reminded the Panel of the email dated 16 September 2025 in which the Registrant had been given notice that there could be an application for an interim order. She submitted that nothing had changed since the Panel made its decision to proceed in the Registrant’s absence with the final hearing.

2. Ms Danti submitted that an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months was necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest. Ms Danti submitted that an Interim Suspension Order would cover the 28 days in which the Registrant may appeal the Panel’s decision. It would also cover the period which it may take for any appeal to be heard. Ms Danti reminded the Panel that the Registrant had agreed in the signed Consent Order to such an interim order being made.

3. Ms Danti submitted that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would be insufficient to address the risk to the public posed by the Registrant who had not been assessed as meeting the minimum requirements for registration as a physiotherapist. Ms Danti also submitted that there was a strong public interest in restricting the Registrant’s practice as she had dishonestly put her own interests above those using her services.

Decision

4. The Panel was satisfied, for the same reasons as set out in its decision above, that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing and thus waived her right to attend. It was also satisfied in its Notice of hearing email of 16 September 2025, the HCPTS had made it clear that an application for an interim order may be made during the hearing. In these circumstances, the Panel decided to hear the application for an interim order in the Registrant’s absence.

5. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. It also had in mind the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Interim Hearings”. The Panel noted that in paragraph 4 of the Consent Order, the Registrant accepted that an interim order should be made:
“The Panel should impose an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period, on the basis that this is necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest”.

6. The Panel considered that an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months was necessary during the appeal period to protect the public from a registrant who had not met the required standards of proficiency for her profession. It was also satisfied that an Interim Suspension Order was otherwise in the public interest. It considered that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would expect such an interim order to be made where a registrant had been assessed as not competent to practise safely and effectively and where that registrant had fraudulently procured registration with the HCPC based on false or incorrect documentation. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the Physiotherapy profession or in the HCPC as its regulator considering the Registrant’s fraudulent conduct in procuring registration and her lack of the relevant proficiency.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the Interim Suspension Order should be in place for 18 months as any appeal from its decision in this case might take up to 18 months to be concluded.

This interim 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 Soraya Jurado Gonzalez