Mr Paul Perrett

: Occupational therapist

: OT53357

: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 29/01/2018 End: 17:00 01/02/2018

: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Suspended

Allegation

(as amended at the Substantive Hearing)

During the course of your employment as a locum Occupational Therapist for Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, you:

1. Crossed professional boundaries with Service User A in that you:

a. Offered support to Service User A, which was outside of your role, to progress her application for a Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

b. Between 6 July 2016 and 23 August 2016, sent text messages to Service User A which did not relate to your role as an Occupational Therapist

c. Visited Service User A’s home, outside the scope of your work on or around the following dates:

ii. 7 July 2016

iii. 11 July 2016

iv. 14 July 2016

v. 19 July 2016

vi. 20 July 2016

vii. 24 July 2016

viii. Between 8 and 13 August 2016

ix. 23 August 2016 d. “air kissed” Service User A during the visits as set out in paragraph 1(c)(iv) – 1(c)(vii) above

e. On or around 14 July 2016, invited Service User A to visit your boat with you

f. During a visit which took place in the first week of August 2016, leaned back into Service User A and then turned and kissed Service User A on the cheek

g. During a visit which took place in the first week of August 2016, invited Service User A to go to a café with you

h. Between 8 and 13 August 2016, prepared and delivered and/or arranged delivery of a Compact Disk to Service User A’s home

i. On or around 23 August 2016, attempted to gain entry to Service User A’s property to do gardening work

2. The matters set out in paragraph 1(c) – 1(i) were sexually motivated.

3. The matters set out in paragraph 1 and/or 2 constitute as misconduct.

4. By reason of your misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters

1. Mr Perrett (the Registrant) is registered with the HCPC as an Occupational Therapist and, at the relevant times, was engaged by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) as a locum Occupational Therapist.

Service

2. The Registrant did not attend the hearing. The Panel took into account that Notice of the hearing was sent to the Registrant by both post and email on 7 November 2017. The version sent by post was sent to the address provided by the Registrant for HCPC registration purposes. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been properly served.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

3. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve Notice of the hearing on the Registrant. The task for the Panel was to strike the proper balance between the HCPC public interest in proceeding with cases such as this in a timely manner and ensuring fairness to the Registrant. The Panel noted that in an email dated 11 January 2018, the Registrant said he would not be attending the hearing. In exercising its discretion, the Panel particularly took into account that:

• there is a burden on professionals to engage with their appropriate regulator in the resolution of allegations;

• the Registrant had taken a conscious decision not to attend the hearing. To that extent his absence was deliberate and voluntary and amounted to a waiver of the right to appear;

• an adjournment was not likely to result in the Registrant attending on a later date;

• the Registrant was bound to be disadvantaged to some degree by his absence.

4. The Panel noted that the Registrant had previously provided written representations regarding the Allegation and the Panel considered all that he had said in an earlier response dated 3 January 2017.

5. The Panel decided that the fair and proper course was to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Background

6. The Registrant was engaged by the Council to work as a locum Occupational Therapist from 3 March 2015. Service User A contacted the Council for assistance and an appointment was made for her to be assessed by the Registrant on 6 July 2016. Between 6 July 2016 and 23 August 2016, the Registrant had contact with Service User A on a number of occasions.

7. CLC was an Interim Social Care Team Manager within the Therapy and Sensory Service of the Council at the relevant times and she had operational responsibility for the work of the Registrant. On 24 August 2016, Service User A telephoned the Council to make a complaint regarding the Registrant. In response, CLC visited Service User A on the same day in the company of another officer to make enquiries about the complaint. The essence of the complaint was that the Registrant had overstepped professional boundaries between him and Service User A by attempting to instigate a personal friendship/relationship with Service User A. On 26 August 2016, the Registrant was interviewed by CLC about the complaint. The result was that the Council created a Register of Concern, a copy of which was provided to the agency that had supplied the Registrant, and to the HCPC. Further, the Council ended the Registrant’s engagement as a locum Occupational Therapist.

The Hearing

8. As is noted above, the Registrant did not attend the hearing. The Panel received evidence from both CLC and Service User A. Prior to the hearing, the Panel Chair had approved a Special Measures application made by the HCPC in respect of Service User A and, in doing so, permitted Service User A to give evidence by videolink and, if necessary, from behind a screen. Given the non-attendance of the Registrant at the hearing, it was not necessary to use a screen.

9. At the outset of the hearing, the Panel considered an application by the HCPC to amend the Allegation. Detail of the proposed amendment had been provided to the Registrant by the HCPC in a letter dated 5 July 2017. The Panel concluded that the application should be granted and was satisfied that there was no unfairness caused to the Registrant. He had been provided with considerable advanced written Notice of the application. The proposed amendments were simply matters of detail rather than substance and the proposed additional detail better particularised the Allegation. The Registrant had raised no objection to the proposed amendments. The amended form of the Allegation is shown above.

Decision on Facts

10. The Panel recorded its findings of fact below, but at this point gives a summary of the Panel’s assessment of the two witnesses who gave evidence:

CLC

11. The Panel found this witness to be measured, credible, balanced and reliable. She was clear about what she knew and readily acknowledged what she did not know.

12. Helpfully, CLC was able to give the Panel some context to the Registrant’s working conditions at the Council:

• CLC was not directly responsible for the clinical supervision of the Registrant: she did not know how many cases the Registrant held; she did not know the dates of his supervision meetings; and she did not oversee the quality of any such supervision notes;

• She acknowledged that, following a restructure within the Council, there was a focus on targets, although she was surprised to hear a comment made by the Registrant in written representations that there was a “culture of fear” within the Council. She did not agree with that description;

• CLC commented that, at the relevant times, the Registrant was experiencing personal issues. In addition, he had made comment to CLC that he was trying to resolve his work/life balance and was seeking reduced hours because he wanted to spend more time pursuing other interests, for example, boating;

• CLC further commented on some of the working conditions within the Council. At the relevant times, the Registrant would not have had use of a mobile phone provided by the Council. Any texting from the Registrant to Service User A would have been on a mobile phone used by the Registrant for his personal use. The working hours within the Council were 9am to 5:30pm Mondays to Thursdays, and 9am to 5pm on Fridays. Any time worked outside of those hours required the authorisation of CLC.

13. It is relevant to note that CLC was not able to assist the Panel with first-hand experience of the particulars of the Allegation because she had not been present on any of the occasions in question.

Service User A

14. The Panel found this witness to be articulate, considered, consistent and calm. The Panel placed weight upon her evidence. She reported that the Registrant made her feel uncomfortable in his dealings with her and that she did “not know how to navigate that”. As a result, she felt unable to confront the Registrant or escalate her concerns.

15. The Panel’s findings of fact in respect of each of the particulars of the Allegation are as shown below.

Particular 1(a) – Proved

1. Crossed professional boundaries with Service User A in that you:

a. Offered support to Service User A, which was outside of your role, to progress her application for a Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

16. The Panel noted the comment within the written representations provided by the Registrant in this context, where he said he regarded himself as “a committed person-centred practitioner, in that I seek to address the whole “personhood” of referred service users”. He went on to say that he had previously worked for Capita as a Disability Assessor, undertaking PIP assessments, and believed it was appropriate to offer Service User A advice concerning an application for PIP made by Service User A and, in particular, how she might respond within a forthcoming PIP assessment.

17. It was clear to the Panel that in this context, the Registrant provided Service User A with a PIP Assessment handbook and purported to give her advice around a PIP Assessment. It was outside his job specification for him to do so. There was no need for the Registrant to give advice to Service User A regarding PIP, because any aids which were thought by the Council to be suitable for Service User A would have been provided free of charge by them. Therefore, the Panel was satisfied that it was outside of the Registrant’s role for him to give PIP advice to Service User A. The Panel took into account that the Registrant did not document any advice he gave to Service User A in connection with PIP. In the Panel’s view, that serves to confirm that the Registrant did not himself truly see his actions in this respect as part of his Occupational Therapist role. This sub-particular is proved.

Particular 1(b) – Proved

b. Between 6 July 2016 and 23 August 2016, sent text messages to Service User A which did not relate to your role as an Occupational Therapist

18. In his written representations, the Registrant acknowledged that he “crossed professional boundaries by me mutually engaging in text message conversations with Service User A”. The Panel was provided with copies of a series of text messages between the Registrant and Service User A and the Panel sets out below, by way of example, the wording in three of the messages, each being from the Registrant to Service User A:

• 1 August 2016, 10.50am: “Good morning [Service User A], I hope this text finds you well. I was wondering if I could call in on you this week as a social call, I could drop round around half 4/5 ish this evening if you are available? Best wishes [Registrant];

• 9 August 2016, 12.18pm: “Hiya, all good here thanks! Capita are really shit! Would you be around later? 7/8 ish?”;

• 9 August 2016, 12.37pm: “No worries, I have done a CD for u. I can’t burn it yet at the mo cos of computer issues! I’ll post it when I can. Wish u well with ur work load. Take care.”

19. The Panel was satisfied in respect of each example of text messaging relied upon by the HCPC that the substance of the text was clearly outside the scope of the Registrant’s role as an Occupational Therapist. The Panel makes the comment that, although it has not been provided with a copy of the CD in question (example 3 above), it was satisfied from the surrounding evidence that the material on the CD did not relate to the Registrant’s Occupational Therapist role. All parts of this sub-particular are proved.

Particular 1(c) – Proved

c. Visited Service User A’s home, outside the scope of your work on or around the following dates…

20. There are eight sets of dates referred to in the sub-particular, as those are shown above. Apart from the alleged visit between 8 and 13 August 2016, the Registrant accepted in his written representations that he visited Service User A on each of the occasions specified in the sub particular. However, he did not explicitly indicate whether or not he accepted that the purpose of his visits was outside the scope of his work.

21. The Panel has first considered each of the alleged visits other than the one between 8 and 13 August 2016. On the basis of the evidence from Service User A and the Registrant’s written acceptance, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant did visit the home of Service User A on each of the dates in question.

22. So far as a visit sometime between 8 and 13 August 2016 is concerned, the Panel was satisfied, on the basis of the evidence of Service User A and on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant visited the home of Service User A on either 12 or 13 August 2016 and hand-delivered a CD.

23. The Panel took into account that on each occasion, the visit was unauthorised and was made outside of normal working hours. The purpose of the visit was not in connection with the Registrant’s role as an Occupational Therapist. The Registrant did not record any case notes of those visits. The Panel concluded that in respect of each of the visits, the Registrant’s purpose in visiting was outside the scope of his work as an Occupational Therapist. All parts of this sub-particular are proved.

Particulars 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g) - Proved

24. In connection with the next four sub-particulars, the Panel believed it was appropriate to deal with them together, given that there was direct conflict between the accounts given by Service User A and the Registrant, with no independent evidence supporting either account.

d. “air kissed” Service User A during the visits as set out in paragraph 1(c)(iv)–1(c)(vii) above

e. On or around 14 July 2016, invited Service User A to visit your boat with you

f. During a visit which took place in the first week of August 2016, leaned back into Service User A and then turned and kissed Service User A on the cheek

g. During a visit which took place in the first week of August 2016, invited Service User A to go to a café with you

25. In respect of the “air kiss”, Service User A’s account was that on the occasion in question, the Registrant moved quickly towards her and put the cheek area of his face alongside her cheek area. She found his action to be inappropriate. The Registrant maintained that it was Service User A who instigated an “air kiss”.

26. In the context of the visit to the boat, the evidence of Service User A was that the boat was kept on The Wash in Norfolk. Any visit by her to use the boat would entail at least an overnight stay. She maintained that the implication within a suggested overnight stay was inappropriate. She said that the Registrant showed her a photograph of the boat. The Registrant accepted that he discussed boating with Service User A, but denied that he ever invited Service User A to his boat.

27. With regard to the visit in the first week of August 2016, Service User A gave a clear account of the hallway in her home in which, she said, the event took place. She was detailed in her account to the effect that in the process of leaving her home through the hallway, the Registrant quickly stepped or leaned back into her body and, in the same motion, turned and kissed her on her cheek. The Registrant has “completely refuted” this allegation.

28. In connection with the claim that the Registrant invited Service User A to go to a café with him, Service User A’s clear evidence was that the Registrant suggested that the two of them could go together to a new café that Service User A had found. The Registrant’s account was that whilst he recalled Service User A talking about a café and agreeing he would check it out, he did “not recall inviting her to go with me”.

29. The Panel has to determine these issues on the balance of probabilities. Service User A gave clear and consistent evidence on Affirmation in support of each of these sub-particulars and was prepared to answer questions on that evidence. The written material from the Registrant has not been given on Oath or Affirmation. He has not attended the hearing to face questions regarding his account. The Panel’s assessment was that Service User A is a reliable witness who gave consistent and calm evidence supported by detail.

30. In the context of each of these sub-particulars, the Panel prefers the evidence of Service User A and, on that basis, finds each of these sub-particulars to be proved. Therefore each one of sub-particulars 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g) is proved.

Particular 1(h) – Proved

h. Between 8 and 13 August 2016, prepared and delivered and/or arranged delivery of a Compact Disc to Service User A’s home

31. There were a number of text messages issued by the Registrant which confirmed that he prepared and delivered a CD to the home of Service User A. The account from the Registrant was that he operated as a disc jockey by way of a hobby. He explained that he would mix tapes for family and friends. He said that he had had a conversation with Service User A about music and he thought a CD he had created would help Service User A with work she had planned. He maintained that he had not made the CD especially for Service User A but “that it was just a copy of a mix I had made previously and was copying for (another) “friend””.

32. The Panel took into account what the Registrant has said, but was satisfied that the Registrant had in fact admitted the facts of this sub-particular and that this sub-particular is proved. This sub-particular is therefore proved.

Particular 1(i) – Not Proved

i. Or around 23 August 2016, attempted to gain entry to Service User A’s property to do gardening work

33. The Panel was satisfied that this sub-particular was, in effect, a repetition or duplicate of sub-particular 1(c)(ix) and, therefore, it was not fair that the substance was considered again. This sub-particular is not proved.

Particular 2 – Not Proved

2. The matters set out in paragraph 1(c) – 1(i) were sexually motivated.

34. In assessing this particular, the Panel recognised that evidence of sexual motivation may not be overt, and may be subtle and only recognised by inference from other findings. It will not always be reasonable to expect a victim of a sexually motivated act to recognise such motivation and explicitly refer to such a motivation when they give evidence.

35. The HCPC has asked the Panel to look at all the relevant evidence in the round when considering this particular. It has been submitted that the cumulative effect when considering matters such as “air kisses” and actual kissing, an invitation to spend time on the Registrant’s boat, an invitation to go with the Registrant to a café, the preparation of a CD, the giving of assistance in connection with the PIP application and the visits to the home of Service User A for no official purpose, served to demonstrate that the Registrant was sexually motivated.

36. In his written representations, the Registrant denied any sexual motivation. He believed he was operating “out of a naïve kindness that I now know I should not have done. I was [experiencing] work pressure and my boundaries were out of check. I see now that at the time I appreciated a “friendship” which was during a time of personal and professional difficulty”.

37. When Service User A gave her evidence, she referred to an occasion when the Registrant, upon leaving her home, had said, of the two of them, that there was “a lot we can do”. Service User A was asked to say what she thought the Registrant may have meant by that comment. She responded by saying that the Registrant may have been referring to the two of them going together to a café or cinema. She did not herself detect a sexual motivation, although she clearly detected a familiarity which crossed professional boundaries.

38. The Panel examined the text message material that has been provided. The Panel accepted that what was said by the Registrant in the texts was often unprofessional but, at this point, the Panel was further examining whether there was sexual motivation. There was certainly familiarity on the part of the Registrant and, given that nature of the texting, the Panel took the view that if sexual motivation were present then traces of it were likely to be found within the wording of the texts. The Panel was satisfied there were no overt sexual connotations, nor could any reasonably be inferred within the text messages.

39. The Panel has to balance all of the evidence. The information from the Registrant shows that, at the relevant times, he had experienced personal difficulties. Evidence from CLC was to the effect that, within the office, the Registrant “kept himself to himself”. The Panel was satisfied that in his dealings with Service User A, the Registrant saw potential for a friendship to develop, but that, of course, is not necessarily the same thing as a sexual motivation.

40. In evaluating this sub-particular, the Panel considered all that was said by the HCPC in submissions on this point and the evidence given by the two witnesses, but concluded that the HCPC has not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the actions of the Registrant were sexually motivated. This sub-particular is not proved.

Decision on Grounds

41. The Panel took into account that misconduct may be defined as a word of general effect, involving some act or omission of sufficient seriousness which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances.

42. The Panel considered each of the sub-particulars which have been found proved. Those actions on the part of the Registrant continued over a prolonged period of about six weeks. The actions were directed towards a person that the Registrant knew, or should have known, was vulnerable. The actions could not reasonably be said to be within the normal role of an Occupational Therapist.

43. The Panel was satisfied that the actions of the Registrant amounted to a breach of the following HCPC “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics”:

1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.

44. The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant breached the following HCPC “Standards of Proficiency for Occupational Therapists”:

1 be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice

2 be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession

45. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that each of the actions of the Registrant which are found proved fell short of what was properly expected from an Occupational Therapist and were sufficiently serious so as to amount to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

46. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practice is ‘Impaired’”. The Panel was considering whether the fitness to practice of the Registrant is impaired as at today’s date. The Panel was bound to take into account both the public and personal components.

47. The personal component includes the current competence, behaviour etc. of the individual registrant and the public component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

48. It was clear to the Panel that there was evidence of impairment to the Registrant’s fitness to practice as at the time of the events in question. The Registrant accepted that in his written representations. An important issue to consider was the extent to which the Registrant may have taken action in the meantime to rectify matters. It is to the Registrant’s credit that in a letter dated 16 May 2017, he accepted it was his fault “alone for looking to maintain any kind of relationship outside of work hours with any client”. He went on to accept that he should not have started any kind of relationship. He expressed sorrow for any distress caused to Service User A and said he did not mean “for any of this to happen”. He apologised also to the Council and the HCPC. He concluded by saying, “Through this experience, I now know that I definitely cannot have any kind of relationship with any client at any time, even if I think I can make a difference to their daily lives. I take full responsibility for my actions that have led to this investigation”.

49. In his written representations dated January 2017, the Registrant accepted that his practice was impaired at the time of the events in question but he did not believe that his fitness to practice was currently impaired “as I have spent many hours reflecting on my actions and learnt the importance of professional boundaries in every interaction”. He continued by saying that he was “happy to pay for any boundaries training to assure the HCPC of my competence and undertake any supervisory conditions deemed appropriate”.

50. However, the Panel was bound also to take into account other comments made by the Registrant which did not appear to be fully consistent with the Registrant’s statements referred to in the previous paragraphs. In his written representations dated January 2017, the Registrant put some level of blame on the Council in respect of what he saw as a high workload and a lack of support systems. The Panel did not accept, even if the Registrant’s assertions in this context were reliable (which the Panel did not find), that any such failings on the part of the Council would have reasonably contributed to the type of actions on the part of the Registrant that have been found proved.

51. The Registrant also maintained that part of his ‘person-centred practice’ would have included assisting with a PIP Assessment; however, the Panel was clear that within the Registrant’s role at the Council, it was not part of his remit to assist Service User A with this.

52. In addition, the Registrant, in his written submissions, suggested that Service User A was at least partly at fault, in that she was seeking information from him “to exaggerate her claim” for PIP. The Panel’s view was that the Registrant’s assertion that a service user may be at fault and thereby cause misconduct on the part of an Occupational Therapist is misplaced. It is solely the responsibility of the individual Occupational Therapist to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

53. With regard to the personal component, the Panel’s conclusion on this point was that whilst there has been some helpful reflection on the part of the Registrant, he has not fully appreciated and accepted that he had sole responsibility for his misconduct. Furthermore, although the Registrant has referred to time spent in reflection, there was no documentary evidence provided by him confirming the steps he has taken in this respect to remediate his practice (for example, a written reflective piece or evidence of other learning, in particular attendance on a professional boundaries course). There was no supporting evidence, perhaps in the form of testimonials, as to the Registrant’s current suitability to practice. There was no real detail from the Registrant as to what he has been doing in a work sense since the time of the events in question.

54. In relation to the public component, the Panel concluded that through his failings, the Registrant did not uphold proper standards of behaviour for a registered Occupational Therapist.

55. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the misconduct on the part of the Registrant has not been fully remediated and, therefore, that the fitness to practice of the Registrant is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction

56. The Panel considered the appropriate Order and has taken into account the HCPC “Indicative Sanctions Policy”. The purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive. The primary purpose is to protect members of the public. Relevant other objectives are to maintain the reputation of the Occupational Therapist profession and confidence in this regulatory process.

57. In deciding what, if any, sanction to impose, Panels should ensure that any sanction is proportionate and strikes a proper balance between the protection of the public and the rights of a registrant.

58. The aggravating features in this case are:

• this was not an isolated incident;

• the Registrant has only limited insight as to his responsibility;

• there is a risk of repetition;

• this was a breach of trust;

• the Registrant has not yet taken appropriate remedial action.

59. The mitigating features are:

• there have been no previous HCPC Fitness to Practise referrals;

• there have been repeated expressions of remorse from the Registrant over the past 12 months;

• the Registrant has engaged in this regulatory process, although on a limited basis.

60. In this case, it is not appropriate to make no Order because that would not provide adequate public protection. Mediation is not appropriate because the failings of the Registrant were neither minor nor isolated. Further, given the nature of this case, it is unlikely that Service User A would find it beneficial and there has been a lack of engagement on the part of the Registrant. A Caution Order is not appropriate because this was not an isolated lapse and was not of a minor nature and, further, the Registrant has shown limited insight.

61. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order. Such an Order will be appropriate where a Panel is confident that a registrant will adhere to the conditions, is genuinely committed to resolving the issues they seek to address, and can be trusted to make a determined effort to do so. There has been limited engagement by the Registrant. He has chosen not to attend the proceedings. The Panel recognised that the Registrant has admitted many of the particulars of the Allegation but, nevertheless, is satisfied that his insight is limited. The Panel has no evidence that allows it to be confident that the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the issues and that he will make a determined effort to comply with conditions. The Panel is satisfied that a Conditions of Practice Order is not appropriate.

62. The remaining options are a Suspension Order or a Striking Off Order. The Panel is satisfied, taking into account the seven years’ experience as an Occupational Therapist on the part of the Registrant and the lack of previous fitness to practice action, that a Striking Off Order would not be proportionate, particularly when a Suspension Order would provide adequate public protection and serve the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and this regulatory process.

63. The Panel has concluded that a Suspension Order is the proportionate and appropriate Order in this case. The Registrant’s misconduct is capable of remediation if the Registrant shows adequate insight. Despite what the Registrant has said about not returning to practise, the Panel takes into account that after a period of reflection, the Registrant may wish to follow such a course. The Panel is satisfied that the Order should run for nine months, because it is likely to take that period of time for full insight and remediation to be gained.

64. The Suspension Order will be reviewed prior to its expiry. This Panel cannot bind the assessment that will be made by any future Reviewing Panel. However, it may assist any such Reviewing Panel, and the Registrant, if at any future review the Registrant were to produce:

• a written reflective piece dealing with why the misconduct identified in this decision occurred and what steps he has taken to prevent such failings occurring again;

• confirmation that he has undertaken continuing professional development which should include the importance of maintaining professional boundaries;

• written confirmation, including testimonials if appropriate, of any work experience (unpaid or paid) carried out by him which demonstrate that the concerns of the Panel expressed in this decision have been addressed.

65. The Registrant is encouraged to attend any future Review hearing and it is likely that any future Reviewing Panel will benefit from his attendance.

Order

That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Paul Perrett for a period of 9 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry.

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Mr Paul Perrett

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
29/01/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended