Hassan Abbas

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened to consider an application made jointly by the HCPC and the Registrant that the fitness to practise proceedings should be disposed of by consent.

Background

2. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Podiatrist/Chiropodist.  From 1 July 2020, until dismissed in circumstances that will be described, he was employed as a Podiatrist by Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust (“the Trust”).

3. On 19 February 2022, the Trust made a referral to the HCPC concerning the Registrant.  It was reported that the Registrant had left his business card with an NHS patient after completing a treatment at the patient’s home.  On 20 February 2022, the Registrant himself communicated with the HCPC, stating that he was currently undergoing a formal investigation.

4. On 1 July 2022, the Registrant wrote an email to the HCPC in which he stated this:

“I made a mistake in advertising private work and private Podiatry work to NHS patients. I misunderstood this is unacceptable and inappropriate. This led to patient complaining as it led them to feel confused and questioned why they would need to pay if they had already been seen by the NHS. Although at the moment of this event, the patient confirmed to seek private practice hence why I left my business card with them. But later they did contact the service to make a complaint.

Whilst being at work I had advertised private practice to patients who were seeking Podiatry outside of the NHS. My mistake and lack of understanding led to this.”

5. The Trust carried out an investigation which resulted in a disciplinary hearing held on 16 August 2022. In that process it was decided that two allegations were upheld.  They were (1) promoting private practice while delivering NHS care; and (2) GDPR – using patient details outside the delivery of NHS care.  It was determined that the Registrant was guilty of gross misconduct and he was summarily dismissed from his employment.

6. On 18 November 2024, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case for the Registrant to answer in relation to the Allegation that is set out at the head of this document.  The Allegation was referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee for hearing.

7. In December 2024, the Registrant indicated what his response to the Allegation was.  He indicated that he admitted the factual particulars, with the exception of particular 1(d) (which alleged, “On or around 21 April 2022 you told Service User B you did “private work and that there is a charge for this”, or words to that effect;”).  He also admitted the allegations of misconduct and that his fitness to practise was impaired.

8. In light of the Registrant’s indicated response to the Allegation, the HCPC’s Solicitors sought the instructions of the HCPC as to whether it would be agreeable to a consensual disposal of the case on the basis of a Conditions of Practice Order (“CoPO”) made for a period of 12 months.

9. The HCPC’s response was that it was agreeable to such a disposal and the Registrant was invited to state whether he agreed to the matter being disposed of on that basis.  On 3 October 2025, the Registrant signed a document entitled, “CONSENSUAL DISPOSAL REQUEST PRO-FORMA”.  By this document, the Registrant confirmed the admissions he had communicated in December 2024, stated that he had read the Practice Note entitled, “Disposal of Cases by Consent”, and also stated that he would like the HCPC to consider the CoPO that had been communicated to him.

10. The document signed by the Registrant dated 3 October 2025, included a statement written by the Registrant entitled, “Appendix to Consensual Disposal application pro-forma – Supporting information”.  This statement appeared between pages 10 and 12 inclusive of the hearing bundle.  This document, together with other documents included in the hearing bundle, namely, pages 17 to 21 inclusive and pages 180 to 181 inclusive, formed important elements of the Panel’s decision.

11. The conditions of the proposed CoPO are as follows:

1. You must place yourself and remain under the indirect supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within seven days of the Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations. Such supervision may be carried out online.

2. You must work with the nominated workplace supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your professional understanding:

A. The power imbalance between a patient and their healthcare professional (Podiatrist),

B. The importance of recognising when a patient is vulnerable and adjusting practice accordingly

C. Identifying risks of exploitation of service users in clinical settings (Podiatry).

3. Within three months of the Operative Date, you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

4. You must arrange to meet with your workplace supervisor monthly to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

5. You must arrange for your work supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

6. You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing every occasion when you have treated a vulnerable patient on a one-to-one basis. You must provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC monthly or confirm that there have been no such occasions in that period, the first profile or confirmation to be provided within five weeks of the Operative Date.

7. You must arrange for your reflective practice profile to be signed off by your nominated supervisor as part of your monthly meetings towards considering your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

8. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you cease to be employed by your current employer.

9. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up any other or further professional work.

10. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up work requiring registration with a professional body outside the United Kingdom.

11. You must inform the HCPC within seven days of returning to practice in the United Kingdom.

12. You must inform the HCPC within seven days of becoming aware of:

A. any investigation started against you; and

B. any disciplinary proceedings taken against you

Submissions to the Panel

12. In advance of the hearing the Panel was provided with a Skeleton Argument dated 17 March 2026, that had been prepared by the Presenting Officer.  In oral submissions at the hearing the Presenting Officer adopted the terms of this Skeleton Argument and advanced submissions that were consistent with it.  It was the HCPC’s submission that the proposed CoPO would provide a proper level of public protection, particularly as the HCPC submitted that the Registrant had shown good insight by his reflections.  The public would be protected, it was submitted, by the regular supervision that would be required by the conditions, and the mandatory review of the Order added to the robustness of the protection afforded.  As to the wider public interest, it was submitted that the CoPO being imposed for 12 months would not be viewed by the public as an easy way out for the Registrant.

13. When invited to address the Panel, the Registrant stated that he wished the Panel to make the CoPO sought and that he would be happy to answer any questions the Panel might have.  In the event, the Panel did not have any questions it wished to ask him.

Decision

14. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and heeded the guidance in the HCPC Practice Note entitled, “Disposal of Cases by Consent” that was reissued in January 2025.  It follows that the Panel approached the decision it was required to make by considering the following issues:

• Whether it was satisfied that the Registrant fully understood what it was he was asking the Panel to do.

• Specifically, whether the Registrant fully understood the requirements of the CoPO.

• Whether the Panel was satisfied that the CoPO would provide a proper degree of public protection and would sufficiently address the other proper aims of a sanction, including the maintenance of public confidence in the profession of podiatry and the regulation of it.

• Even if the CoPO would be an appropriate sanction, whether permitting the issue to be disposed of on a consensual basis would be detrimental to the public interest.

15. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant fully understood what he was agreeing to.  His admissions had been consistent over a lengthy period of time and had been fully explained by his reflective documents.  Furthermore, the fact that he had denied an element of the factual elements alleged against him demonstrated that he had applied a critical mind to the issue.

16. The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant had a full understanding of the specific requirements that would be imposed by the CoPO.

17. To answer the question whether the CoPO would afford a proper degree of public protection, it was necessary for the Panel to form a view about the Registrant’s insight into his admitted misconduct.  It was in this regard that the Panel found the documents identified in paragraph 10 above to be of critical importance.  On the basis of those documents, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had achieved very considerable insight.  With that acceptance in mind, and accepting that the real question is whether the Panel considered that a more restrictive sanction than the proposed CoPO should be imposed, the Panel turned to the Sanctions Policy.

18. Paragraph 153 of the Sanctions Policy is in these terms:

“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

• the registrant has insight;

• the concerns are capable of being remedied or managed;

• there are no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the registrant from remediating;

• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;

• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;

• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and

• a panel is satisfied that a registrant may continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm.”

In the judgement of the Panel, the present case fully satisfies each of these suggested factors.

19. The appropriateness of a CoPO could only be fully assessed by deciding if a more restrictive sanction could be considered to be appropriate.  In that regard, the Panel heeded the words of paragraph 169 of the Sanctions Policy, “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.”  The Panel did not consider that a suspension order would be appropriate.  Conditions of practice can reasonably address the concerns.  Suspension would not only inhibit the Registrant’s ability to further develop his remediation, but would also deprive the public of the services of a podiatrist who is capable of providing safe and effective treatment.  A striking off order would, in the circumstances of the present case, be wholly disproportionate.

20. For all these reasons, the Panel was satisfied that a CoPO with the proposed conditions sufficiently addressed the factors requiring the imposition of a sanction.

21. The Panel fully accepted that there can be cases where it would be inappropriate to agree to a consensual disposal of an Allegation even if the proposed sanction is appropriate.  In the judgement of the Panel this is not such as a case.  The Panel acknowledges that there is an admission of misconduct, but the misconduct was not of the degree of seriousness that would require the matter to be disposed of at a full public hearing.

22. The result of these findings is that the Panel accedes to the joint application that the CoPO should be made.

23. The Panel directs the HCPC to provide to any future panel undertaking a review of the CoPO, the documents identified by page numbers in paragraph 10 above.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 12 months this Order comes into effect, you, Hassan Abbas, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must place yourself and remain under the indirect supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within seven days of the Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations. Such supervision may be carried out online.

2. You must work with the nominated workplace supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your professional understanding:

A. The power imbalance between a patient and their healthcare professional (Podiatrist),

B. The importance of recognising when a patient is vulnerable and adjusting practice accordingly

C. Identifying risks of exploitation of service users in clinical settings (Podiatry).

3. Within three months of the Operative Date, you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

4. You must arrange to meet with your workplace supervisor monthly to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

5. You must arrange for your work supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

6. You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing every occasion when you have treated a vulnerable patient on a one-to-one basis. You must provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC monthly or confirm that there have been no such occasions in that period, the first profile or confirmation to be provided within five weeks of the Operative Date.

7. You must arrange for your reflective practice profile to be signed off by your nominated supervisor as part of your monthly meetings towards considering your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

8. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you cease to be employed by your current employer.

9. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up any other or further professional work.

10. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up work requiring registration with a professional body outside the United Kingdom.

11.  You must inform the HCPC within seven days of returning to practice in the United Kingdom.

12.   You must inform the HCPC within seven days of becoming aware of:

A.   any investigation started against you; and

B.    any disciplinary proceedings taken against you

The HCPC’s application for an Interim Order

1. After the Panel handed down its written determination explaining the decision that it acceded to the application that the CoPO should be made, the Presenting Officer applied for an interim order.  He submitted that the factors that had resulted in the substantive CoPO being made required an interim order mirroring the conditions imposed by the substantive Order.

2. When given the opportunity to comment on the HCPC’s application, the Registrant stated that he was grateful to the Panel for having agreed to make the CoPO, and that he accepted it and was happy with the outcome.  He did not make any specific comment on the application for an interim order.

3. The Legal Assessor explained to the Panel that despite the CoPO being made by consent, the statutory right of appeal has to be extended to the Registrant and that fact means that the substantive CoPO will not come into effect while the Registrant has an opportunity to appeal.

4. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the application.  It also had regard to the section entitled, “Interim orders” between paragraphs 182 and 186 of the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Interim Orders”. The Panel must consider whether there are risks that satisfied one or more of the three grounds that could justify the making of an interim order.  Those grounds are, (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public, (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest, and (iii) that it is in the interests of the registrant concerned.  Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the default position established by the legislation governing this process is that when a substantive sanction is imposed, there will be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain extant.  Accordingly, something more than the fact that a substantive sanction has been imposed is required to justify the making of an interim order.  The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach.

5. The Panel was informed that the Registrant had not hitherto been the subject of an interim order.  However, the relevance of that fact was limited given that different considerations apply to the decision whether an interim order is necessary following the imposition of a sanction to those that apply when the issue is one of a mere allegation.  Furthermore, the absence of an interim order to date would not be a sound reason for refusing an application were the Panel to be persuaded that one is necessary.

6. However, when the Panel addressed the question whether an interim order is necessary for protection of members of the public, it concluded that it is not.  In the view of the Panel this is not a case in which the Registrant presents such a direct and obvious risk of patient harm that an interim restriction could be said to be necessary.  The substantive conditions are designed to ensure that the Registrant remains on the path he has long since been following, a fact underlined by the requirement of supervision being indirect supervision.

7. Having carefully considered whether this is a case in which an interim order is otherwise in the public interest, the Panel concluded that it is not.  The public interest will be satisfied with the knowledge that, following the Registrant’s admissions of misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise, he will be subjected to the substantive CoPO for 12 months.  Public confidence would not be diminished by the knowledge that it had not been decided to override the clear intent of the legislation that the Registrant’s ability to practise will not be restricted while there is the possibility of an appeal.

8. There could be no basis for concluding that an interim order is required in the Registrant’s own interests.

9. For all these reasons the Panel decided to refuse the HCPC’s application for an interim order.

History of Hearings for Hassan Abbas