The Hearing Aid Council

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

On December 4th, the HAC Disciplinary Committee found Peter Ormrod, a registered dispenser, guilty of unethical conduct. Following some concern from the public, the Council would like to clarify that this Mr Ormrod is not the same Peter Ormerod who was appointed by the Secretary of State to act as a member of the Hearing Aid Council. Peter Ormerod, who sits on our Council and the Disciplinary Committee, has never been found guilty of any breach of the HAC Code of Practice.

The Council would like to apologise for any confusion or inconvenience caused.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here. The hearing was conducted over the 7th and 8th of September.

You can read the transcript of the discussion of the application for costs discussed on the 5th October here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here. The issue of costs was dealt with on the 10.12.2008 and can be read here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the transcript for Andrew Harris, Jonathan Hobbs and Michael Hobbs.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the transcript for Victoria Dixon and Robert Maitland and can view the combined costs schedule.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the sanction made on the 24th April 2008 and the cost decision made on the 24th June 2008.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the costs judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the judgement here.

You can read the full transcript here. To read a summary of the case please click here to read our press release.

You can read the full transcript here. To read a summary of the case please click here to read our press release.

You can read the full transcript here. To read a summary of the case please click here to read our press release.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can read the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can view the full transcript here.

You can download the full transcript here.

You can download the full transcript here.

Download the full transcript here.

Download the full transcript here.

Download the full transcript here.

Download the full transcript here.

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus, Milton Keynes

on

Wednesday, 5th October, 2005
And
Thursday, 6th October, 2005

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. A. Corcoran
Mr. H. Thomas
Mr. M. Bishop
Dr. G. Armstrong-Bednall

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
SIETECH HEARING LIMITED

———-

MISS SARAH CLOVER of counsel, instructed by Miss C. Mogridge, Solicitor to the Hearing Aid Council and assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar and Mrs. A. Benson, Case Manager, Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

MISS B. LANG Q.C. of counsel, instructed by Mr. R. Houlker, Messrs. Nightingales, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of Sietech Hearing Limited.

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

——–

THE CHAIRMAN: This hearing arises out of dispensing by a registered hearing aid dispenser who was an employee of Sietech Limited. The basic facts are quite straightforward. Mr. Willis visited an 88 year old man who had, some nine or ten months before, received some in-the-ear hearing aids from another dispenser. The client was elderly and confused. The evidence that Mr. Willis put forward was that he had told him that his current aids were top of the range and were extremely good. He, however, accepted the instructions of Mr. Edwards to dispense a further set of aids.

The oral evidence which the Committee heard today was from a Mr. Stanley, an employee of the Respondent company, who indicated that he would have expected a dispenser in such circumstances to take every step possible to enable the potential client to get the best possible use out of his existing aids. That is the view of the Disciplinary Committee and the view of the Disciplinary Committee is that significantly more could have been done by Mr. Willis to assist Mr. Edwards in the habilitation and rehabilitation which would have enabled him to get proper use out of the existing aids. This very easily could have involved a variety of actions, but one at least could have been further work to encourage the customer to go back to his existing dispenser; it could have even included discussion with a carer or significant family member who had understanding of the individual’s hearing loss, needs and experience with hearing aids. So we are satisfied that there was, in the primary facts underlying this case, a breach of Clause 3 of failure to provide best advice.

We then came on to consider whether there was a breach of Clause 12 and we find that the proper interpretation of Clause 12 is an absolute obligation ’shall ensure’ and on this occasion the Respondent company did not so ensure.

Looking at the question of vicarious liability and the extent to which there were more and effective things which could have been done, the Committee felt that further guidance could have been done in regular training sessions which would have encouraged dispensers to take a more responsible role in assisting clients. Furthermore, on a simple commercial reality, given the commercial links between the Respondent company and the supplier of the aids some nine months before, one would have thought that the overall commercial objectives of the company would have been better served by a recognition of the need to provide a service by ensuring that the services of the other company were appropriate in cases such as this. So we find there has been a breach of Clause 12.

- – - – - – - – - -

Thursday, 6th October, 2005.

D E C I S I O N
(CONTINUED)

THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee has considered all the evidence it has heard and the mitigation with respect to this case. However, we award a penalty of £1500 against the Respondent and we think that this is appropriate and commensurate with the issues which have been canvassed before us.

To assist respondents in future in considering how to approach Clause 12 issues, evidence as to the effectiveness of their systems to ensure compliance by their employee dispensers with the Code of Conduct and the audit of the effectiveness of those systems would be valuable in demonstrating the argument which was advanced on behalf of the Respondent that the Respondent company have done everything which it could.

MISS CLOVER: The agreed figure for costs is £4,500.

MR. MOAT: That is against Sietech and that also deals with any application for costs in the McCowan case.

MR. HOULKER: It does. There is nothing in connection with Ultratone, we tried to keep it simple and I would like to make the point that because they are companies that are independent, insofar as there may be any disparity between them, they can sort it out between themselves.

MR. MOAT: Yes, exactly. So that is a total of £6,000 and 28 days. So today is the 6th.

THE CHAIRMAN: So that makes the 3rd November.

MR. MOAT: Payment by 4 pm on the 3rd November 2005.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus, Milton Keynes

on

Wednesday, 5th October, 2005
And
Thursday, 6th October, 2005

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. A. Corcoran
Mr. H. Thomas
Mr. M. Bishop
Dr. G. Armstrong-Bednall

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
MR. DAVID SUTTON
And
ULTRATONE LIMITED

———-

MISS SARAH CLOVER of counsel, instructed by Miss C. Mogridge, Solicitor to the Hearing Aid Council and assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar and Mrs. A. Benson, Case Manager, Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

MR. R. HOULKER, Solicitor, Messrs. Nightingales, appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

———-

THE CHAIRMAN: The facts in this case are very clear. The registered dispenser, Mr. Sutton, examined Mr. Adams and established that he had hearing loss, that he had noise exposure which was some years old; it has come out in evidence before us that that noise exposure was some decades ago. Mr. Sutton, who is employed by Ultratone Limited, did not refer Mr. Adams for clinical investigation by his GP.

The facts are straightforward. We heard the arguments advanced on behalf of Mr. Sutton and Ultratone Limited, but we cannot depart from the decision of this tribunal in the case of Brown. However, having looked at that case and considered the law, we are satisfied that while Brown is a helpful exploration of the issues around historic hearing loss, the case itself was decided on the basis of recent hearing loss and accordingly is not authority for the proposition that in the case of historic hearing loss we cannot make an adverse finding against a dispenser and his employer.

Accordingly we find that there is a breach of the Code of Conduct by Mr. Sutton and therefore under Clause 12 by his employer.

No sanction.

In considering the application for costs and the arguments for reducing those costs, we have taken into account our discretion, the facts of the case and the conduct of the case. In particular we have taken into account our decision that no sanction was appropriate in this case, but that there was a breach.

In the circumstances we think the most just and equitable solution is that there should be no order and that each side should bear its own costs and that, I think, concludes the business for today.

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus, Milton Keynes

on

Thursday, 6th October, 2005

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. A. Corcoran
Mr. H. Thomas
Mr. M. Bishop
Dr. G. Armstrong-Bednall

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL

-v-

MR. PAUL N. GURNEY

(Fast track hearing)

———-

MISS C. MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared to present the case, assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar and Mrs. A. Benson, Case Manager, Hearing Aid Council.

The Respondent was not present.

———–

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939
________________________________________

THE CHAIRMAN: In this matter the Disciplinary Committee is considering a complaint by Mrs. King against Mr. Paul N. Gurney, a registered hearing aid dispenser.

The facts are quite straightforward. In January 2004 Mr. Gurney carried out audiometry on Mrs. King and subsequently supplied her with a hearing aid. This simple transaction, however, gave rise to two significant issues of concern which Mr. Gurney has now acknowledged. The first was that in contravention of Clause 9(a) of the Hearing Aid Council’s Code he failed to carry out audiometry in accordance with the recommended procedures of the British Society of Audiology in that he did not carry out bone conduction.

In his mitigation Mr. Gurney effectively indicates that this was a deviation from his normal practice, that he had carried out audiometry on the lady before and that it was an oversight that he did not do so.

The second breach was of an economic and consumer protection rather than professional competence nature in that in contravention of Clause 19 of the Code he failed to pass on to Mrs. King the full guarantee period offered by the manufacturer of the aid which he had supplied.

The Committee views both these breaches as significant. However, in the light of Mr. Gurney’s mitigation and also that he will be putting training, effort and money into undertaking training in audiometric testing and has made a qualified promise to the Investigating Committee as to the nature of the training he will undertake and the time period in which he will do it and in that context we trust that the Investigating Committee will ensure that some of this training is approved by the British Society of Audiology. In the light of all these matters the Investigating Committee is imposing a lesser sanction than it would otherwise do.

We are also conscious that by acknowledging his errors with respect to both charges he has frankly faced up to his professional responsibility and he has brought forward the disciplinary process in a more orderly, smooth and effective way. For these reasons with respect to the breach of Clause 9(a) the Disciplinary Committee imposes a sanction of £750 with costs of £500 and with respect to the breach of Clause 19 it imposes a sanction of £750 and £500.

As I indicated earlier, the Disciplinary Committee considers both of these infringements of significance and the sanctions would be higher, in particular the sanction with respect to poor audiometry would be higher but for the actions which he is now going to take in order to improve his clinical practice and ensure that it meets proper professional standards in the future.

The inclination of the Disciplinary Committee is to make an order, and in fact it will make an order, of full sum within 28 days which takes us through to, I think, 4 pm on the 3rd November.

For completeness, the Disciplinary Committee formally accepts the promise as to future training which the Respondent dispenser has made as a qualifying promise under Clause 1 of the Hearing Aid Code of Practice and that, I think, concludes the hearing with respect to Mr. Gurney.

(Later)

Amending that decision under the slip rule, the relevant date for payment is the 10th November in order to ensure we are fully compliant.

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

FAST TRACK HEARING

Held at

Regus House
Fairbourne Drive, Atterbury Lakes, Milton Keynes

on

Monday 16th May 2005

——————–

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorne
Mr. P. Ormerod

——————–

Case of:

MR. IAN CROSTON

——————–

MR. CROSTON was neither present nor represented.

MISS C. MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared to present the case, assisted by Mrs. A. Benson, Case Manager, and later by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar, Hearing Aid Council.

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Iris Butcher, MBIVR Tel/fax 01525 752668

D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the Disciplinary Committee in the matter of the complaint by Mr. G. Wilkinson against Mr. Ian Croston, registered hearing aid dispenser.

On 27th March 2003 Mr. Croston carried out an audiometric examination on Mr. Wilkinson in his home. An examination of the audiogram generated in that examination and the case notes indicates that Mr. Croston failed to carry out bone conduction measurement appropriately, there was no evidence that he had undertaken masked readings, and he had failed to mark the audiogram correctly.

Subsequent to that Mr. Croston was interviewed by the Investigating Committee, undertook retraining in audiometry, and sat the audiometry section of the practical examination. However, Mr. Croston failed this examination. As a result of a further interview by the Investigating Committee Mr. Croston undertakes, in accordance with Paragraph 1(b) of the 2004 Code of Practice, that he will undergo further training in audiometry and will, at his cost, within four months from 16th May 2005 on a date to be specified by the Council, undergo a form of assessment in respect of audiometry skills, the details in respect of which will be provided to him in due course. Mr. Croston also undertakes, in accordance with Paragraph 1(b) of the 2004 Code of Practice that, if he fails this assessment he will not practise from the date of such failure as a registered hearing aid dispenser without supervision from a registered hearing aid dispenser until such time as he satisfies the Council of his competence in audiometry by such means as the Council may determine.

In the light of these qualifying promises the Disciplinary Committee is satisfied that appropriate remedial steps to address Mr. Croston’s shortcomings are in place.

Turning to the original circumstances which gave rise to the complaint, the Committee understands that Mr. Croston has come to an understanding with Mr. Wilkinson which leaves Mr. Wilkinson satisfied.

The Disciplinary Committee views this case as quite unusual. However, the Investigating Committee has thoroughly investigated issues round Mr. Croston’s competence and is satisfied that no greater restriction is necessary than is imposed by the qualifying promises, the effect of which is that if Mr. Croston is unsuccessful in the assessment which will take place in the next few months, then he will only be able to practise under supervision.

The Disciplinary Committee, in the light of all the circumstances, imposes a penalty of £1,000 in connection with the charge admitted which was a breach of Clause 9(a) of the Code. The Disciplinary Committee also imposes costs of £750. The full sum of £1,750 is to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision.

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

FAST TRACK HEARING

Held at

Regus House
Fairbourne Drive, Atterbury Lakes, Milton Keynes

on

Monday 16th May 2005

——————–

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorne
Mr. P. Ormerod

——————–

Case of:

MR. TERENCE WILLIS

——————–

MR. WILLIS was neither present nor represented.

MISS C. MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared to present the case, assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar, and Mrs. A. Benson, Case Manager, Hearing Aid Council.

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Iris Butcher, MBIVR Tel/fax 01525 752668
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: This case relates to a complaint against registered hearing aid dispenser, Mr. T.M. Willis. On 22nd August 2003 Mr. Willis sold two Siemens Phoenix Pro 102 Digital behind the ear aids to a Mr. Edwards for £2,390. Mr. Willis was aware that Mr. Edwards had recently, in fact less than nine months before, purchased other hearing aids. Mr. Willis advised Mr. Edwards to contact the other dispenser to adjust the previous aids because Mr. Willis was of the view that the quality of hearing from the previous aids could not be bettered. Mr. Edwards declined without explanation to do this. Mr. Willis did not consider it was for him to arrange adjustments to the previous aids, and accordingly sold Mr. Edwards the Siemens behind the ear aids.

The customer in this case was an extremely elderly and frail man suffering from several serious medical conditions from which he shortly thereafter died. The Disciplinary Committee believes that it was Mr. Willis’s obligation to take proper steps to enable Mr. Edwards to get the benefit of the aids which he had so recently purchased.

Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee, having reviewed the evidence, concludes that Mr. Willis, contrary to Clause 3 of the Hearing Aid Council’s Code of Practice 1999 edition, failed to give the best possible advice to Mr. Edwards regarding hearing aids and their use. The Committee has considered the mitigation put forward by Mr. Willis and is satisfied that an appropriate penalty for a breach of Clause 3 of this nature is £1,500, which together with costs of £750 it awards. This penalty and costs totalling £2,250 are to be paid within 28 days of today’s date.

——————–

HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus, Blythe Valley Business Park, Solihull.

on

Friday, 28th January, 2005.

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. A. Corcoran
Mr. G. Armstrong-Bednall
Mr. M. Georgevic
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL

-v-

MR. SADHU GILL

———-

MISS SARAH CLOVER of counsel, instructed by Plexus Law, assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

MR. J. DONNE Q.C., instructed by Mr. J. Davis, Messrs. Clifton Ingram, appeared on behalf of Mr. Sadhu Gill.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: In considering the submissions made by the parties to this case, the Committee was aware that the usual approach for the award of costs is that costs follow the event. In looking at the circumstances in the round, we see no reason to depart from that approach. Accordingly the Hearing Aid Council’s application for costs is dismissed.

Turning now to the Respondent’s application for costs, we have considered the level of costs claimed and, approaching the matter broadly, feel that the figure is somewhat high. We reduce that figure of £14,911 to £14,183 exclusive of VAT.

We have considered the conduct of the case and believe that this could have been more effectively carried out if a proper communication and disclosure policy had been adopted by the Respondent. Accordingly, we allow 60% of the costs; this produces a figure including VAT of £10,000, which is payable within 28 days, I suppose.

MR. DONNE: Did you say including VAT?

THE CHAIRMAN: Including, of £10,000.

MR. MOAT: £14,183.83 plus VAT which comes to £16,666.66, six-tenths of which is £10,000, that is how the arithmetic was intended to function, as I understand it.

MR. DONNE: Some very clever maths.

THE RESPONDENT: I think the VAT is more than that.

MR. DONNE: We will sort that out.

MR. MOAT: That is the decision that the Committee has made. I am sure if there is any further reasons or whatever you want with respect to the decision the Committee would be more than happy to give them.

MR. DONNE: No, not all, the reasoning is very helpful and very clear.

MISS CLOVER: We do actually ask, if it is possible, for further reasons for our future guidance as the Hearing Aid Council.

MR. MOAT: As far as what’s concerned?

MISS CLOVER: In relation to the decision as to costs.

MR. MOAT: Right. I suggest the sensible thing, if you want to do that, Miss Clover, I don’t know whether you want to stay to hear that Mr. Donne, but maybe if you want to be released and we’ll say that the Chairman will give any additional reasons at two o’clock.

MR. DONNE: Thank you very much.

MR. MOAT: I think, apart from that, that ends the proceedings.

MR. DONNE: Thank you, sir.

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Hearing Aid Council Offices, Milton Keynes

on

Monday, 24th January, 2005

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Georgevic
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL

-v-

MR. C. MARTIN
and
ULTRATONE LIMITED

(Fast track hearing)

———-

MISS C. MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared to present the case, assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar and Mrs. A. Benson, Case Manager, Hearing Aid Council.

DR. MARYANNE MALTBY (Investigating Committee) also present.

———–

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: On 17th February, 2004, Mr. Martin, a registered hearing aid dispenser, employed in such capacity by Ultratone Limited, carried out audiometry upon Mr. Bloom, the complainant in this matter. Mr. Bloom consequently purchased from Mr. Martin two DE740 half-shell hearing aids at a total cost of £5,280.

Mr. Martin, in the course of carrying out audiometry upon Mr. Bloom, and in his consequent sale of hearing aids to Mr. Bloom, failed to comply with the Hearing Aid Council’s Code of Practice (1999 edition in force at all material times).

In the light of Mr. Bloom’s preferences, Mr. Martin prescribed ITE aids, notwithstanding his knowledge that BTE aids would be more appropriate given the nature of Mr. Bloom’s hearing loss. This gave rise to considerable difficulty for Mr. Bloom.

He also failed, in the course of taking a history, to give appropriate advice to seek medical advice given the nature and probable causation of the hearing loss that was associated with noise exposure.

Quite soon after the supply of hearing aids Mr. Bloom complained and within five months had not only returned the aids, but received the refund of very nearly (but unfortunately not all) of the purchase price associated with the aids from Mr. Martin’s employer, Ultratone Limited.

In coming to its conclusions the Disciplinary Committee took into account the speed with which this matter had been resolved by the two Respondents, although it viewed with concern the failure to fully reimburse the costs associated with the aid. It viewed with considerable concern the very poor quality of the record keeping of Mr. Martin which had not indicated any advice with respect to the choice of an in-the-ear rather than behind-the-ear aid and the failure to give the appropriate advice.

We recognise that the dispenser and his employer dealt promptly and appropriately with the investigation instituted by the Hearing Aid Council and accordingly with respect to the dispenser the Disciplinary Committee impose a penalty of £1,250 in respect of the failure to give best advice under Clause 3 and £250 in respect of the breach of Clause 5(j), failing to give appropriate advice to Mr. Bloom to seek medical advice about his hearing loss.

With respect to the employer, Ultratone Limited, this company was charged with two breaches of Clause 12 in that it failed to ensure that its dispenser complied with the Code of Practice in respect of the two breaches by
Mr. Martin. In respect of the first breach, the failure to give best advice, the employer is subject to a penalty of £750 and in respect of the second breach, the failure to advise Mr. Bloom to seek medical advice, the employer is subject to a penalty of £250.

The Disciplinary Committee awards costs of £1,500 against Mr. Martin and costs in a similar sum against Ultratone Limited.

These sums of £3,000 from the dispenser and £2,500 from Ultratone Limited shall be paid within 28 days of the date of this hearing.

That concludes the Disciplinary Committee.

- – - – - – - – - -

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus Centre, Regus House, Fairbourne Drive,
Atterbury, Milton Keynes. MK9 3RG

on

Tuesday, 30th November, 2004.

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorn
Mr. A. Corcoran
Ms C. Pearce
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
MR. NEVILLE COSTELLO
AND
SIETECH HEARING
(Fast Track Hearing)

———-

MISS CHRISTINE MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Council, assisted by
Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

Neither defendant was present or represented.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Read, an 89 year old lady, underwent audiometry performed by Mr. Neville Costello on the 22nd October 2002; he is employed by SieTech Hearing Limited. She purchased a hearing aid at a cost of £1,345 and it was fitted on the 14th November 2002. At that time she believed that she had purchased and was being fitted with a DE4 hearing aid; in fact, as Mr. Costello knew when he fitted it, he fitted a GM Resound DE2 hearing aid.

Some weeks went by and during that time Mrs. Read unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. Costello in order to obtain service. Finally, her son, in early January 2003, resolved the difficulties and identified the fact that the wrong hearing aid had been fitted and obtained a refund for her and payment of £250 compensation from the company for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The matters were referred to the Hearing Aid Council and three charges were brought against Mr. Costello and one against his employer. The charges against Mr. Costello were firstly a charge of unethical conduct under Clause 2 of the 1999 Code of Practice in that he had fitted a different hearing aid from that which was ordered. The second charge was, at the hearing today on the 30th November, withdrawn. The third charge was that in contravention of Clause 18 of the Code of Practice Mr. Costello failed to make reasonable provision for the servicing of Mrs. Read’s hearing aid contrary to what was reasonable and also contrary to her contractual rights. Mr. Costello accepted his guilt with respect to the first and third charges.

Following a careful consideration of the circumstances of the offence and hearing Mr. Costello in person over the telephone, as well as considering the mitigation he had put forward before the Investigating Committee and the recommendation of the Investigating Committee, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that Mr. Costello should be suspended for five weeks from practice as a registered hearing aid dispenser with effect from close of business today, that suspension to come to an end at close of business on the 4th January 2005 with a costs’ award in favour of the Hearing Aid Council of £500 in respect of that charge. We also direct the Registrar to give him suitable guidance as to his conduct during the intervening period.

With respect to the breach of Clause 18 we impose a penalty of £2,000 and costs of £750. We direct that this penalty and costs should be paid at the rate of £50 per month starting on the 31st December 2004 and running on for a further 24 monthly payments thereafter and that the balance of £2,000, which will then be outstanding, should be paid on or before the 28th January 2007. In the event that any of these payments be late or not paid, the whole sum outstanding will be payable forthwith.

Turning now to the case of SieTech Hearing Limited, the employer of Mr. Costello: this company was charged under Clause 12 of the Hearing Aid Council Code of Conduct in that it failed to ensure that he complied with his obligation under Clause 18 to make reasonable provision for the servicing of the hearing aid. The Committee imposes a penalty of £2,000 and costs of £750, these to be paid within 28 days.

The Disciplinary Committee takes a very serious view of Mr. Costello’s failure to disclose to Mrs. Read that he had not provided the aid for which she had contracted and in the light of that, and his expressed intention to replace it with the correct aid as soon as possible, we take a very serious view of his failure to take action rapidly to ensure proper servicing and the proper replacement of that aid.

- – - – - – - – - -

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus Centre, Regus House, Fairbourne Drive,
Atterbury, Milton Keynes. MK9 3RG

on

Tuesday, 30th November, 2004.

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorn
Mr. A. Corcoran
Ms C. Pearce
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
HIDDEN HEARING LIMITED
(Fast Track Hearing)

———-

MISS CHRISTINE MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Council, assisted by
Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

Hidden Hearing was neither present nor represented.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: In this case a single charge is brought against Hidden Hearing Limited arising out of a transaction with Mrs. Smith. She underwent audiology on the 11th January 2000 and agreed to purchase a Widex Senso hearing aid at a total cost of £2,560. At the same time she purchased a guarantee for her hearing aid from the company in respect of the replacement or repair of the hearing aid.

However, it subsequently transpired that that guarantee was for a period when the hearing aid should have been covered by the manufacturer’s guarantee. Accordingly the company was in breach of Clause 19 of the Code of Practice in that it did not give the client the benefit of the guarantee offered by the manufacturer of the goods.

In subsequent dealings between Mrs. Smith and Hidden Hearing, the cost of the guarantee was refunded as indeed was the cost of the hearing aid.

The Committee has heard today that there have been a number of such cases relating to Hidden Hearing, but these are, to the best of the knowledge of the Registrar, historical and relating to a similar time period as when this transaction was entered into and it appears that, and we have an assurance from the company to this effect, it has thoroughly reviewed its procedure to prevent such events happening in the future.

There was a late application as to the level of costs to be awarded in favour of the Hearing Aid Council. In initial discussions between the Council and Hidden Hearing Limited a figure of costs of £500 was indicated. However, subsequent investigations have exposed a true level of cost which appears to be in excess of £2,500. This has been disclosed to Hidden Hearing and an application has been made on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council for costs of £1500 to be awarded, giving some recognition to Hidden Hearing for the failure to properly investigate and disclose costs to the defendant at an early stage.

The Disciplinary Committee has considered the late application as to costs and has concluded that costs should be awarded in favour of the Hearing Aid Council in the sum of £1500. However, it wishes to place on record its concern which it shares with Hidden Hearing Limited that in future costs should be better investigated and disclosed at a far earlier stage during proceedings such as this.

Turning to the substantive event itself, the Council has considered the assurance that it has received from the defendant and recognises that this transaction with its inappropriate content arose under circumstances which no longer prevail. Accordingly the Council imposes a penalty of £1,000 for breach of Clause 19. This gives a total of costs and fine of £2,500 to be paid by close of business on the 31st December 2004 and that concludes the business of the Committee for today.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus Centre, Regus House, Fairbourne Drive,
Atterbury, Milton Keynes. MK9 3RG

on

Tuesday, 30th November, 2004.

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorn
Mr. A. Corcoran
Ms C. Pearce
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
MR. DAVID BROPHY
(Hearing for restoration to the Register)

———-

MISS CHRISTINE MOGRIDGE, Solicitor to the Council, assisted by
Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

MR. DAVID BROPHY appeared in person.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: We grant the application. With respect to costs we will make an award in favour of the Council of £1,420.52 pence to be payable at £100 per month.

MR. MOAT: So that first payment on or before the 31st December 2004?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. MOAT: And if there is default on any payment they all become due?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. All due forthwith in case of default.

MR. MOAT: Do you understand that?

MR. BROPHY: Yes, thank you.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus Centre, Regus House, Fairbourne Drive,
Atterbury, Milton Keynes. MK9 3RG

on

Monday, 29th November, 2004.

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorn
Mr. A. Corcoran
Ms C. Pearce
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
MR. ROBERT MCKEE
AND
AMPLIVOX/ULTRATONE LIMITED

———-

MISS SARAH CLOVER of counsel, instructed by Plexus Law and assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.
MS SARAH WILKINSON instructed by Mr. Roger Holker, appeared on behalf of Mr. R. McKee.
MS CLAIRE WEIR of counsel, instructed by Mr. Mr. Roger Holker, appeared on behalf of Amplivox/Ultratone Limited.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: On the 25th March Mrs. Jean Steven purchased a hearing aid from Mr. McKee acting on behalf of his employer Amplivox/Ultratone and that transaction gave rise to a variety of charges which were finally resolved today. Four charges were brought against Mr. McKee and four charges against his employer.

In today’s proceedings two of those charges were withdrawn against each party and pleas were accepted with respect to the other two charges.

The first substantive charge which was proved was a breach of Clause 9 of the 1999 edition of the Code of Practice relating to the failure to conduct audiology in accordance with the accepted standards. There was no clear evidence of bone conduction testing being carried out on the audiology record signed by Mrs. Steven. On the information we have received today it would appear that bone conduction audiology was carried out.

The second matter against both defendants, which was the subject of a plea, was again a breach of Clause 9 and the facts constituting that charge were that a different audiogram in relation to Mrs. Steven’s left ear to that given to and signed by Mrs. Steven was retained by Mr. McKee on behalf of his employer as part of the client case history record.

We have listened very carefully to the submissions this morning and we are extremely concerned at the inconsistencies in record keeping. The wrong audiological record was given to the client; that error was, on what we are told this morning, very rapidly discovered, but it was not corrected, the client was not told at the earliest opportunity, which she should have been. It would have been possible to give her the correct record some five days after the test was carried out when she was fitted with the aid, according to the audiological record before us. We find this to be very poor practice; a serious failure in professional duty, which exacerbates the original failure to get the records correctly, completed on the day in question.

Accordingly, with respect to charge 2, the lack of evidence of bone conduction testing, we impose a penalty of £1,000 on Mr. McKee and with respect to the differing audiograms, we impose a penalty of £4,000 on Mr. McKee, together with £3,000 costs and we direct that £2,000 be paid by the end of this year and £500 a month thereafter, which means that he will discharge his obligation by the 31st December 2005.

With respect to Ultratone/Amplivox: we reprimand the company in respect of charge 2. With respect to the differing audiograms’ issue, this is an error which was brought to notice some time ago and the serious inconsistencies between the various records were identified. From what we have been told today the issue has still not been thoroughly investigated, the client appears not to have been notified and the company does not appear to have satisfied itself that another client has not been affected by this confusion in the audiological records. We welcome the progress that they have made in terms of – very belatedly – assessing Mr. McKee’s competence, but we are concerned that things have moved very slowly after the discovery of this really quite serious error.

Accordingly, with respect to charge 3, we impose a penalty of £2,500 and we award costs of £2,500 against Ultratone/Amplivox and that, I think, concludes the business for today.

MR. MOAT: Can I perhaps just clarify with you, sir, a couple of matters? Can we deal with Ultratone first? Expectation of payments in?

THE CHAIRMAN: 28 days.

MR. MOAT: Dealing with Mr. McKee next: the note I have got is £2,000 by 4pm on the 31st December 2004?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. MOAT: And £500 per month thereafter, each payment to be made by 4pm by the last day of the month?

THE CHAIRMAN: The last banking day of the month, yes.

MR. MOAT: In default of any individual payments, is there anything said with respect to when payments become due and owing?

THE CHAIRMAN: In default of payment of any amounts the full outstanding sum forthwith.

MR. MOAT: I think that concludes everything. Is there anybody uncertain? Thank you very much.

- – - – - – - – - -

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

held at

Regus Centre, Regus House, Fairbourne Drive,
Atterbury, Milton Keynes. MK9 3RG

on

Monday, 29th November, 2004.

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorn
Mr. A. Corcoran
Ms C. Pearce
Mr. M. Bishop

———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL
-v-
MR. SIMON SULLIVAN
AND
AMPLIVOX/ULTRATONE LIMITED

———-

MISS SARAH CLOVER of counsel, instructed by Plexus Law and assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.
MS SARAH WILKINSON instructed by Mr. Roger Holker, appeared on behalf of Mr. S. Sullivan
MS CLAIRE WEIR of counsel, instructed by Mr. Mr. Roger Holker, appeared on behalf of Amplivox/Ultratone Limited.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Ann Y. Hill MBIVR. Tel/fax: 01299-401939

I N D E X

Page number

Decision of the Committee 1

——————-
D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: We have considered carefully the submissions with respect to the cases of Mr. Sullivan and Amplivox/Ultratone.

Miss Bridget Johnson purchased a GM Resound hearing aid on the 19th February 2002 (sic) following audiological investigations from
Mr. Sullivan. The records, which Mr. Sullivan produced, are very full and detailed and unfortunately clearly disclose substantial failings in his practice of audiology. We are grateful to Mr. Sullivan for his frankness and openness in this matter and indeed his full disclosure of what has happened. However, the failings in his audiology and in particular in basic audiological practice are of concern and in the light of that and the potential risk to the safety of his patients, we feel that we have to take a very serious view of these breaches.

Accordingly, with respect to charge 6, which relates to breach of Clause 9, failure to carry out air conduction and bone conduction with masking where it is appropriate, and also charge 1, the failure to give best advice, we feel it essential to suspend Mr. Sullivan for a period of one calendar month from the 1st December to the 31st December, two concurrent suspensions.

In respect of the other charges we reprimand him and we impose a costs’ order of £2,500 to be paid £100 per month starting from the 1st January, so the first payment would be due at four o’clock last banking day of January. If any payment is late then the whole sum will become due immediately.

Turning to his employer, Amplivox/Ultratone: our concerns really are the failure to properly supervise this practitioner who clearly needed a greater degree of support than perhaps other practitioners do. Our concern is that he may well have been sinking rather than swimming for some time and given the deficiencies in audiology exposed by this case, our concern is that no efforts appear to have been made to ensure there are not other failures to carry out audiology properly and make appropriate clinical referrals.

With respect to penalties we impose a penalty of £1,000 with respect to charge 1; £250 with respect to charge 2; £250 with respect to charge 4; with respect to charge 5 we reprimand; with respect to charge 6 a penalty of £2,000; with respect to charge 7, £500 and with respect to charge 8, a reprimand. We also impose costs of £3,500, sums to be paid within 28 days.

MR. MOAT: The total upshot of that, dealing with Ultratone first, is £7,500, being £4,000 in fines and £3,500 in costs, is that your understanding and does that make sense, Miss Weir?

MISS WEIR: Yes, that’s certainly, on my very quick maths, what I had reached.

MR. MOAT: With respect to Mr. Sullivan, he is not suspended tomorrow, but he is suspended the day after that for one calendar month and that basically covers any time in December and then he will be free to practise again from the 1st January. He also has £2,500 to pay by way of costs and £100 a month is to be paid with the first payment on the 31st January 2004 (sic) so he gets the chance to go back and work before he ends up having to pay and also gives him some time to put monies aside or take out loans; that payment will continue for 25 months afterwards. In default of any of the payments all the sum becomes due. Obviously if he wants to pay the sum back at any speedier rate the Hearing Aid Council will be happy to accept. Is that all clear?

MISS WILKINSON: Yes, that is clear to me.

MISS WEIR: Yes. There is just a correction of the date for the transcript, I think the Chairman started with 19th February 2002.

THE CHAIRMAN: March.

MISS WEIR: I just wanted to clarify that.

THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, thank you.

MISS WEIR: Thank you very much for staying so late.

- – - – - – - – - -

Decision :HEARING AID COUNCIL

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE HEARING

held at

Regus House, Fairbourne Drive,
Atterbury, Milton Keynes, MK9 3RG.

on

Thursday 16 September, 2004

———-

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. C. Hughes (Chairman)
Mr. R. Moat (Legal Assessor)
Mr. M. Hawthorn
Mr. H. Thomas
Mr. M. Bishop
Mr. A Corcoran
———-

HEARING AID COUNCIL

-v-

FREEMAN AND SIETECH HEARING

———-

MISS SARAH CLOVER, of counsel, instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer and assisted by Mr. C. Reid, Registrar to the Hearing Aid Council, appeared on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council.

MR. ROGER HOULKER appeared on behalf of Mr Christopher Freeman and Sietech Hearing Limited.

———-

Transcribed from the Shorthand Notes of
Linda Nicholls, ABIVR.
Tel/fax: 01865 376462

D E C I S I O N

THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee have very carefully and fully considered the evidence before it, the written evidence, the plea and the detailed mitigation we have heard on behalf of both the defendants.

Turning first to Mr Freeman: we are satisfied that Mr Freeman deliberately misled Mr Stacey about the state of the hearing aid. This is a very grave matter. However, we have also had to consider that he has been in practice for 28 years without any disciplinary record before the Council. He did plead guilty to the charges very quickly after the full extent of the case was disclosed, and that he has shown his remorse by apologising today and by a plea to the most serious charge, the unethical conduct, and we give him credit for that. However, unethical conduct is a very serious matter and the Committee have no alternative today but to suspend him for a period and we have concluded that a period of three months suspension is appropriate in this case. In addition we impose a penalty of £3,000 in respect of that charge.

The other charges may be dealt with more swiftly. In respect of Charge 3, to which there is also a guilty plea, relating to the failure to advise the client to seek medical advice, we accept that Mr Freeman pursued a course of action which was not inherently unreasonable or foolish and we admonish him for his failure to properly discharge his obligations.

With respect to Charge 4, which relates to audiometry, we impose a fine of £1,000, and with respect to Charge 5 we impose a fine of £1,000.

We welcome the undertakings which Mr Freeman has offered during the course of the mitigation, which we accept.

Turning to Sietech: in this case we find there is a clear failure of clinical and ethical governance in the way that Mr Freeman was managed. We welcome the further programme of training and supervision which Sietech has clearly been strenuously working to put in place over the last year and a half but we note that Mr Freeman fell through the net of receiving training due to changing views as to his proposals for retirement. We conclude that a fine of £3,000 in his case is appropriate.

Turning to the question of costs: we recognise that the costs in this case may appear high. However, taking into account the points made in mitigation and in the interests of resolving this matter fairly we conclude that total costs of £10,000 should be divided equally between the two defendants, so £5,000 each defendant. Again, 28 days to pay.

MR MOAT: Can we just be clear as to the period of suspension, that will run from today for three months?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR HOULKER: Can Mr Freeman have time to pay?

THE CHAIRMAN: I indicated 28 days. Do you want to take instructions on that? The total sum is £10,000?

MR HOULKER: That is all right.

MR MOAT: Is there anything else Mr Houlker you wish to say?

MR HOULKER: Not that I am aware.

THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes today’s business. Thank you.

(The hearing concluded)

- – - – - – - – - -

Decision :D E C I S I O N S

Proceeding in absence:

THE CHAIRMAN: We agree that we will hear these matters today.

Facts:

THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee has carefully considered the evidence relating to the charges against registered hearing aid dispenser, Mrs. Carol Mackenzie. The Committee is not satisfied that the unethical conduct charges were made out in these circumstances. However, it was entirely satisfied that the charges of failing to provide service, failing to correspond with the Registrar, and failing to keep registration details current were properly made out.

Penalty:

THE CHAIRMAN: In the case of Mrs. Carol Mackenzie the Disciplinary Committee is particularly concerned about the systematic pattern of failure to correspond with the Registrar, and the systematic pattern of continuing to dispense hearing aids while failing to provide service to existing customers.

In respect of these patterns of behaviour, this systematic pattern of breach of the Code of Conduct, the Disciplinary Committee erases Mrs. Mackenzie in respect of each charge under Clause 18, Clause 21 and Clause 8, and makes an award of costs in the sum of £10,602.84 in favour of the Council.

——————–

Decision :D E C I S I O N S

Proceeding in absence:

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, the Disciplinary Committee has considered the submissions and is satisfied that the proper way forward, in particular in the light of its obligation to behave fairly to the defendant and the defendant’s obligations as a registered professional to deal expeditiously with the Hearing Aid Council and to remain in contact with it, it is proper for this hearing to go ahead.

Facts:

THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee has now carefully deliberated with respect to the evidence against Mr. Dewhurst-McLean and is entirely satisfied that he was in breach of the Code of Conduct and the statute in respect of Charges 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22, but was not satisfied that he was in breach of the Code of Conduct in respect of Charges 1, 3 and 6 which were (for your assistance) pressured selling in respect of Dr. Hasegawa and two charges of unethical conduct with respect to Mrs. Fox.

Penalty:

THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee has carefully considered the facts which have been proved in this case, which related to a large number of charges. We view especially seriously what we see as a sustained course of conduct, sustained pattern of behaviour, shown most clearly with respect to the charges of unethical conduct, failure to provide proper repairs and maintenance, and failure to correspond with the Registrar.

In the light of the gravity in particular of the unethical conduct charges and the failure to deal promptly with the Registrar’s correspondence, we erase Mr. Dewhurst-McLean from the Register. We do not impose any sanction in respect of other charges which clearly, if they were being dealt with in isolation, would require a significant penalty.

MR. MOAT: That is an erasure on each of the Clause 21 and Clause 2 issues.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. MOAT: Do you make any separate order as to costs?

THE CHAIRMAN: And we make an order for costs in favour of the Hearing Aid Council in the sum of £12,915 etc.

MISS CLOVER: £12,915.58.

THE CHAIRMAN: Indeed.

Decision :D E C I S I O N S

Proceeding in absence:

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The Disciplinary Committee is satisfied to proceed and is aware that the defendant in these matters has been fully aware of the proceedings being in train for a substantial period of time and has chosen not to participate.

Facts:

THE CHAIRMAN: We have carefully considered the evidence in the cases relating to Mr. Nigel Collins, registered hearing aid dispenser. We are satisfied that all the Clause 18, failure to provide proper service, and Clause 21, failure to deal properly with the Registrar, have been established. We find the unethical conduct charges proved in respect of cases Christine Moore and Mr. McEvoy.

Penalty:

THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee has considered the circumstances surrounding these events and the prolonged course of unethical conduct which has been pursued by Mr. Collins. In the light of this, and the continued failure to deal properly with the Registrar, the Disciplinary Committee strikes him off the Register in respect of unethical conduct and Clause 21 charges. There would, if the Clause 18 charges had been taken in isolation, have been significant penalties with respect to those, but on this occasion no penalties are imposed with respect to those; and an order in favour of the Hearing Aid Council of costs in the sum of £9,852.

(Discussion follows re time to pay)

MR. MOAT: Obviously it is 28 days unless you state to the contrary; and just to clarify, insofar as it is not set out specifically, with respect to the other two cases it is 28 days as well.