The Hearing Aid Council

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.

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Clover.

MISS CLOVER: Thank you, sir. This is a directions hearing in relation to three matters, the cases that I hope you have all received papers in, the purpose of today really being to test once and for all whether these three defendants have any intention of attending or co-operating. They have all three of them been sent notices with the charge sheets indicating today as the return date for the directions hearing with a further hearing date to be set in the future. So in no uncertain terms it indicated that they should be here.

In Mr. Collins’ case we are under the impression that we have his most up-to-date address. The most recent information we have in relation to him is that he was successfully sued by one of the clients and in the course of those Court proceedings his current address became apparent and was made available to the Hearing Aid Council. It is to that address that we have sent all the notices and paperwork, and we are under the impression to the best of our knowledge that he is simply ignoring us. I can provide more information about that if required. So we are confident that he is simply declining to make himself available for these proceedings.

In the case of Mrs. MacKenzie and Mr. Dewhurst-McLean we have lost track of them; we do not know where they are. The last contact we had with either of them was in relation to the last registration details that they provided to the Hearing Aid Council, which in Mr. Dewhurst-McLean’s case the last communication I think was in June of 2002, and Mrs. MacKenzie we only have her former registration document which was August 2001 and the letter that she sent in in relation to that.

We have instructed inquiry agents in relation to both of those defendants to make every effort to track these two individuals down, and they have sent in documentation which is provided on the bundles in the first couple of dividers to show the processes that they have gone through to try and locate Mr. Dewhurst-McLean and Mrs. MacKenzie. They are categorical and they state that they have exhausted all possible means of finding them and have not been able to locate an up-to-date address. So we are beyond our power now in making any further contact with them. We have sent documentation to their last registered address in both cases, which as far as I am concerned on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council is all that we are obliged to do in terms of service; but we have gone beyond that in making every conceivable effort possible to make contact with these two people and that has availed us nothing.

It becomes apparent in reading the statements of the complainants in both of these cases that they had contact with both defendants at some point in their dealings, and during that correspondence, that communication, they were making it plain that they were very unhappy about how things were going in their dealings with Mr. Dewhurst-McLean and Mrs. MacKenzie, and that they wished to take it further, resolve it, commence legal proceedings, whatever it might be. So these two could have been in no doubt, is my submission, that there were problems that needed addressing. In light of that, never mind about whether they knew that formal proceedings were being laid at the Hearing Aid Council, they ought to have been making themselves available. It is clear that what they have actually done is to go to ground – to use the phrase.

That is the situation that we are in. As far as today’s hearing is concerned what I would seek to do on behalf of the Hearing Aid Council is to set a date for these three hearings, these three matters, and for one other which has not yet progressed as far as these three down the line (it is a case called Freeman), to set a date to hear all four cases - and I have some proposals as to how I would seek to present my evidence - and hopefully dispose of all four cases in the day.

My application is to hear them all in the absence of the defendants. I maintain that that is a proper procedure. It is foreshadowed in the Hearing Aid Council Rules. There is a provision made for reading charges in the absence of the defendants. Part III of the 1991 Rules states that the charges can be read in the absence of the respondent; so it clearly envisaged that this is a procedure that is available to the Disciplinary Committee.

MR. MOAT: The key bit is 5, is it not?

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

MR. MOAT:

“The charge or charges shall be read in the presence of the respondent, and of the complainant (if any, and if he appears); Provided that if the respondent does not appear at the inquiry but the Committee nevertheless decide that the inquiry shall proceed the charge or charges shall be read in his absence.”

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

MR. MOAT: And that gives a discretion, does it not?

MISS CLOVER: Yes, it does.

MR. MOAT: And essentially as a matter of law the discretion would have to be exercised on the basis of considering whether all reasonable efforts have been made to notify the defendants of the hearing.

MISS CLOVER: That is quite right; and I maintain that I can demonstrate that I have done that.

My view on the test as to whether the defendants can be tried in their absence is based on the analogous criminal rules in a similar situation, and it is perfectly permissible in a criminal trial to conduct the trial in the absence of the defendant. There are certain guidelines that have been laid down by the Court of Appeal as to the considerations that should be gone through before that is done, but if you are satisfied as to each of those considerations in respect of any particular case then in line with criminal proceedings you would be perfectly entitled in my view to adopt the same course. Again, if that is something you want to go through at any particular stage I have the guidelines here, but Mr. Moat is well aware of them.

So that is where we are up to. I am really in your hands, sir, as to how you want me to progress. I know there are one or two issues that need to be looked at; for example, the way in which I present my evidence (and I have some proposals about that), the number of charges that I would pursue, and so on and so forth. Can I get an indication, sir, of how you would like me to proceed?

THE CHAIRMAN: I think the concern of the Disciplinary Committee can be summarised as a wish to ensure that matters are generally brought before them as quickly as possible. Where we do not have this co-operation in circumstances like this we would be very reluctant to bring people from the ends of the country for a hearing here where we have very clear charges which can be relatively straightforwardly dealt with in a confined way. I am thinking of charges relating to failure to notify the address, failure to correspond with the Registrar, where the evidence can be confined and can be readily dealt with.

I think the preliminary view of the Disciplinary Committee is that in each one of these cases we should look to putting what are charges of that nature, hear and dispose of those charges as quickly as possible, and consider at that stage – at that stage of disposal – what should be done with the charges relating to consumers.

MISS CLOVER: Yes. Well, I do not need to proceed on each and every charge that is on these charge sheets. My interest (and I will be blunt about it) is obviously to ensure the erasure of each and every one of these defendants. There are sufficient charges on each charge sheet to achieve that. There are Clause 2 issues against each of these defendants, and I take the view as well as I am able that one or perhaps two of those matters, in conjunction with Clause 21s and the failure to notify change of address, would be ample to give you power if you so chose to erase.

In terms of timing, it is probably not time or cost effective to proceed with charge after charge after charge, and I would be seeking to leave the remainder of the charges outstanding on the file. The way in which I would like to do it is to secure statements that would comply with criminal proceedings in the form of a statement with a given declaration, as a Section 9 statement. So they would effectively have to be re-issued, all the witness statements would then have to be re-issued. Mr. Collins we have some hope he might see them; the other two we do not have that confidence, but still I think we are complying with the required regulations. If we do not hear back as to witnesses that are required live, then my contention is that I can read the witness statements out. I would choose to do that, as I say, on perhaps two of the Clause 2s, one or two of the Clause 2s, and then the responding to the Registrar and failure to notify change of address.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, clearly it is up to the Investigating Committee to decide how and what charges it brings before this Committee.

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: As I have indicated, at the next hearing it would be possible to deal with certainly the administrative charges relating to relations with the
Council —-

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: - by oral evidence.

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: And it might then be, after we had considered those charges, we could consider what steps would need to be taken with respect to any other charges which you might or might not be wishing to proceed with on that day.

MISS CLOVER: I would only be looking for one more hearing. I do not envisage a scenario whereby we come back for administrative matters that the Registrar can deal with.

THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I am certainly not intending to have any hearing. I am merely concerned to ensure that we can deal with sufficient evidence to address the issues before us appropriately.

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: And not in any way to deal unfairly with these three dispensers.

MISS CLOVER: Yes. Well, I see no difficulty with that, as long as we again make every possible effort to … Or with the Section 9 statements in terms of the content of the statements there would be nothing new; it is simply to re-draft them to comply with the terms of the Section.

MR. GEORGEVIC: Would Mr. Reid also produce a Section 9 statement?

MISS CLOVER: No, because he is going to give live evidence and is available to questioning from the Committee. What I would propose to do in the case of the one or perhaps two witnesses that I would rely on in the case of each defendant is that I would make them available on the telephone as well, just in case any of the members of the Committee have any questions they wish to ask, or anything they wish to clarify.

MR. MOAT: I think that would be important, because especially with defendants who are not necessarily going to receive all the Section 9 statements, and we know that, I think it is absolutely imperative that any of the witnesses you want to call are available to be tested.

MISS CLOVER: Yes.

MR. MOAT: Because I think if not, it does not sit easily with giving a fair trial to the defendants.

MISS CLOVER: I cannot see any difficulty with that because if there are between three and five complainants in each case, there can be no difficulty finding one or two who are going to be available on the telephone, and I think that will suffice. All I am seeking to do in each case is to give the Disciplinary Committee enough material, as it were, to give them enough power to impose any sentence that they ultimately thought appropriate rather than feeling restricted in what they were able to do.

MR. MOAT: How long is that going to take then?

MISS CLOVER: Not very long at all. The only restriction on timing is going to be this fourth case, because as far as I know the charge sheet has not yet been finally drafted, so it has not gone out to provide the 28 days’ notice. So it cannot be within a 28-day period from today unfortunately. I do not know why that has not been done, but it has not. I advised on it in April.

The other difficulty in the case of Collins is that you have probably noticed from the bundle there are no formal witness statements as yet (again something I advised about in April) and the bundle has gone out simply with the original letters of complaint. It has to be in a witness statement form, and now of course it has to be in a Section 9 format as well. But it is the fourth case of Freeman that I think is going to cause the difficulty. I do not want to do the three cases on one day and then come back again at a later stage to do the fourth; I would rather have a slightly longer period of adjournment to get all four done on the same day. It is not going to take any more time from my point of view once we are here. So realistically it has got to be a minimum of five weeks from today. I will get the Registrar to find out where we are up to on that particular case.

THE CHAIRMAN: Before he goes, are there any other cases which have been referred from the Investigating Committee to the Disciplinary Committee?

MR. REID: Yes, but they are at the stage of just doing the letters to the Disciplinary Committee now and to you, and then they go to the solicitors for advice. I do not think they will be ready in 28 days, or five weeks from now. There is an additional one which is an application for restoration to the Register, which I would like to bring forward on that day as well.

THE CHAIRMAN: We are now at the 20th. Realistically we are looking the last week of June - or probably not very realistically looking at the last week of June now. We have a lot of business around there. So we are looking then at the week beginning 5th or the week beginning 12th July as being the earliest dates; yes?

MR. REID: Yes. Can I just check on this Freeman case first because we may be able to bring it back in.

MR. GEORGEVIC: The SieTech and Stacey case – that was listed for today.

MISS CLOVER: That is Freeman. The defendant’s name is Freeman; Stacey is one of the complainants. Why that has been … I am afraid I am not sure. SieTech is one of the defendants, Stacey is a complainant, Freeman is the other defendant as the dispenser.

I think the reason it is not here today is because the file was not prepared in time. I received all of these files in April, just prior to Easter, and advised on all of them. Three of them have made it to today and the fourth one has not. That is the situation.

THE CHAIRMAN: Was there any other … ?

MR. MOAT: I do not think so. Essentially so far as anything today is concerned, it is a matter for you whether you want to say anything about whether, if this had been listed for a full hearing, we would have proceeded at the present time; but obviously that is not going to be binding on any further Disciplinary Committee because they have to take a view on the evidence that they hear as to the appropriateness of going on when the case comes back again. But it may be that that is of some assistance so that the Investigating Committee can consider whether there are any other steps they have to take.

MISS CLOVER: That would be helpful for me because obviously if your decision is that there is no way on the material currently available that we could proceed in absence then I do not want to learn that for the first time when we come back on another date.

THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee would certainly have been quite comfortable in dealing with what I have called the administrative matters in dealing with the Hearing Aid Council, and that might, in the light of issues around non-payment of fees, also clarify how the cases might be dealt with.

MISS CLOVER: Can I just explain why I want to proceed with things in the way that I do. The charge sheets have been drafted on the basis of what the specific dealings the dispensers have had with their clients have revealed – serious matters of Clause 2s in each case. If we were to ignore those or put them to one side, or proceed on administrative matters, non-payment of fees and so forth at this stage, there is a serious chance in my view that these would never be dealt with. If, for example, the only reason that these defendants were removed from the Register was for non-payment of fees, or if they were erased for reasons like Clause 21s (failure to respond to the Registrar), and then at some subsequent stage, say five years down the line, eight years, ten years, whatever it might be, appear back again on the Register – and there would be difficulties I think in refusing that on the basis of what they have been removed for – I would be in grave difficulty in resuscitating any of these matters. I am not barred from doing it technically, but years down the line I am going to have witness difficulties, I am going to have memory difficulties, I am going to have practical difficulties in reviving these.

If I can get some of these on their records now, Clause 2 issues in particular, and then at some future stage there is a re-application to come back on the Register, I think we are going to be in a much stronger position to make a realistic decision as to whether these are fit and proper persons to be dispensers serving the public. Otherwise there is an artificial scenario whereby these dealings with members of the public existed in 1990 whatever it was, or the year 2000 and so forth, but five years down the line, nothing was ever done about it and it cannot be held against them and they must be allowed back on the Register to deal as if these things had never occurred. That does not strike me as very satisfactory.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I suppose the Al Capone approach to justice may not have convicted him of his major offences but was entirely effective in bringing his career to an end, and what one would be looking at five years down the track if the only decision related to failure to communicate with the Registrar and the registration body, one would be looking at a sustained course of practice on the individual’s behalf, where they had failed to act in a professional manner with their professional body, which some might see as a very serious issue.

MISS CLOVER: They might; a differently constituted DC might not. In my view the safe course, the unarguable course, is to have a Clause 2 on the record and then there can be no argument by anybody ever. It is my view – and under the circumstances that we are now in - it does not seem to me that it is that much more difficult to achieve. It is not going to be more costly in terms of time or resources. That is the reason I am proceeding in this way.

If it was going to be a major headache to do it, then I would not take that view, but it does not seem to me that it will.

THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We will see how the Committee feels in July. Do we have progress on … ?

MR. REID: I am just waiting for the lawyer to phone back.

MR. MOAT: Is it the intention to try and fix a date now?

MISS CLOVER: Ideally, yes.

MR. MOAT: I wonder, if that is so, sir, whether I can have a minute and go and make a phone call.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sure. In the meantime the members of the Committee can look at …

MR. GEORGEVIC: It may be a differently constituted committee, might it not?

MR. MOAT: It does not need to be the same committee.

THE CHAIRMAN: No, it does not, but it would be helpful —-

MR. MOAT: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: - if we can fix it today.

(There then followed consulting diaries and discussion re dates)

THE CHAIRMAN: So the 24th June. What time will we need to start – 9.30?

MR. REID: 9.30 for 10.

MISS CLOVER: Yes. Freeman then: we need a trial of Freeman because we assume it is going to be contested – the fourth case.

MR. MOAT: Are you wanting to list Freeman today?

MISS CLOVER: Ideally, so we know where we are.

MR. REID: If not we will do it in the normal way.

(There followed further consultation re dates)

MR. MOAT: I think in terms of directions the crucial thing is the defendants actually being here. The directions are a bit unnecessary if the defendants are not here. I can understand in this particular case why there have been concerns about adequacy of notice, but I think in simple terms that is almost more of an adjournment issue that you can go directly to the Chairman on. I know we have discussed directions and whether it is a good thing, and indeed I have suggested to you that directions might be sensible in cases where you were having difficulties in sorting out with your opponent exactly what a trial bundle was, whether they might plead to lesser offences and these things. If they are represented and they can turn up and they feel it would be useful to talk and effectively try and mediate an agreement with you, with the Committee here, on how to be able to deal with things, that seems to me to be very useful. But it is a matter we are best leaving to your discretion, is it not?

MR. REID: Thank you. Then I will organise it.

THE CHAIRMAN: So we now have dates for these three cases which is 24th June, 9.30 for 10; and for the next batch of hearings we are on 16th and 17th September. Are there any other matters we need to deal with today?

MISS CLOVER: No; that is it.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Moat?

MR. MOAT: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: Fine; very well. Hearing is concluded for today. Thank you for your attendance.

——————–

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the Disciplinary Committee in the matter of Mr. Richard Alan Bunce. On 28th May 2002 Mr. Jones visited Sietech Hearing Limited for an examination by Mr. Bunce. That examination was not carried out to a standard which the Hearing Aid Council would expect. In particular, Mr. Bunce failed to properly examine the ears, failed to detect the presence of wax, failed to carry out the examination in accordance with best professional standards, failed to give best advice because of the way he carried out the examination, failed to make a proper record of his findings of the examination, failed to advise the client to seek medical advice because of the presence of occluding wax.

That sequence of events gave rise to four charges which have been accepted as correct by Mr. Bunce.

Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee imposes the following penalties and costs with respect to the four charges:

Charge 1, which was breach of Rule 9 – failure to carry out the examination in accordance with the procedures of the British Society of Audiology – a penalty of £1,000 and costs of £1,000.

Charge 2, breach of Rule 3 of the Code of Conduct – failure to provide best advice – a penalty of £1,000 and costs of £1,000.

Charge 3, breach of Rule 5 – failure to make a proper record of the findings of examination - £500 with costs of £500.

Charge 4 – failure to advise the client to seek medical advice – a penalty of £500 and costs of £500.

With respect to his employer, Sietech Hearing Limited, the one charge was brought forward which was the failure to ensure that its dispenser complied with the Code of Practice, a breach of Rule 12 of the Hearing Aid Council’s Code of Practice. Here a penalty of £3,000 and costs of £3,000 is imposed.

These penalties and costs are to be paid within 30 days of today.

MR. MOAT: I think it is perhaps best in terms of the order if that is formally recorded as the payment being made on or before 4 pm on 10th March 2004.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The Disciplinary Committee directs that payment by Mr. Bunce of £3,000 fines and £3,000 in costs be made on or before 4 pm on 10th March, and by Sietech Hearing the same sums by the same time.

That concludes that hearing.

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: This is the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Hearing Aid Council on 9th February into the case relating to registered hearing aid dispenser, Mr. Begley, and his employer, Hearing Healthcare Limited, in connection with the services he provided to Dr. de Coverly Veale.

On 27th February 2001 Dr. de Coverly Veale’s hearing was tested by Mr. Begley. He failed to carry out bone conduction testing, he also failed to properly record the details of the audiometer, and in his subsequent supply of hearing aids he failed to properly give the terms of guarantee or give a document indicating that Dr. de Coverly Veale’s statutory rights were not prejudiced.

In looking at this case the Disciplinary Committee is conscious of the time which it has taken for this matter to come before the Disciplinary Committee, which at three years is far too long. It is also conscious of the fact that it was before the Investigating Committee some nine or ten months ago. While it considers that the sanctions imposed with respect to deficient audiometry are lenient, on this occasion the Disciplinary Committee is content to impose a sanction in line with the discussions that have taken place. It is a concern of the Disciplinary Committee that where deficient audiometry is identified, steps are taken to ensure that the dispenser undergoes proper training to redress the deficiency.

Turning now to the penalties imposed: with respect to the deficient audiometry a sanction of £500 is imposed; with respect to the failure to record the details of the audiometer Mr. Begley is admonished; with respect to the two matters relating to the documentation of the contract, a penalty of £500 in respect of each matter is imposed. In addition, costs of £250 are imposed with respect to each of the four charges.

With respect to his employer: a penalty of £1,500 is imposed with respect to the failure to ensure that their employed registered hearing aid dispenser properly complies with the Code of Conduct, and costs of £1,000 are imposed.

Accordingly the total penalty and costs imposed on Mr. Begley are £1,500 in penalty, and £1,000 of costs, making a sum of £2,500, to be paid by 4 o’clock March 10th. With respect to his employer a penalty of £1,500 and costs of £1,000, to be paid by the same time.

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The Disciplinary Committee has now considered this matter with great care. The position may be briefly summarised. Mr. Cornwell applied to the Hearing Aid Council to be registered as a trainee, and after he had done that he sat his examinations, qualified and practised. During the course of his practice we have evidence before us that he has worked in an exemplary way and provided a very good service for his patients. He has not been the subject of complaints, and we have heard a glowing description of his work and reputation within the organisation for which he works.

The difficulty is that at the root of his relationship with the Hearing Aid Council and with the profession of which he is now a member is a substantial act of dishonesty. That act of dishonesty was forging an educational qualification which he did not have and which was the condition precedent for him being able to embark on his career.

We have as a committee considered all aspects of this. However, our conclusion is that this act of dishonesty goes to the root of his relationship with the Council and with the profession. Accordingly, we direct the erasure of Mr. Cornwell from the register of hearing aid dispensers. We award costs to the Hearing Aid Council in the sum of £4,250 to be paid within 30 days of today, which I believe is 4pm on 10th March. No doubt his Counsel will advise him as to his rights of appeal and his rights of re-application.

MISS LANG: Sir, I would just like to make some representations about the costs.

THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, yes; I apologise.

MISS LANG: The overall figure we feel is very high for a hearing that has lasted less than two hours. I appreciate there has been some apportionment, although I am not sure exactly how it has been done; but it would seem a little unfair if you have to pay more in costs simply depending on how many people there are appearing on that particular day.

Taking into account the experience of those who sit behind me of other hearings of the Committee, the view is that costs in the region of £3,500 would be a more appropriate figure. Whether the figure is £4,200 or less I would ask for considerably more time to pay than 30 days because the position that Mr. Cornwell now finds himself in is that of someone who is unemployed. He obviously has to feed and clothe his family first, and in those circumstances that is quite a lot of money to find if he does not have that sort of money sitting in a bank account. So he would like six months to raise the amount of money that is awarded in costs against him, please.

THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Clover, anything to say as to the amount? I think Miss Lang said £3,500.

MISS CLOVER: Well, our highest figure was £4,200, I think, so I ought to correct that to start with. The way it has been done is that the costs of the day are fixed no matter how much of the day we use, and the way Mr. Reid has apportioned it is to split it in half. So the fast track hearings have accounted for half of the day’s costs and the other half apportioned to Mr. Cornwell. That is how it has been done. As I say, they are fixed costs; we cannot reduce them on an hour by hour basis because the building is required, the lawyers are required, and of course yourselves required for the day. That is how it has been done. I am not going to say anything else.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Pause – consulting with Committee). Very well; thank you for that. The costs order will be in the sum of £3,500 with six months to pay.

MISS LANG: Thank you.

I have just been asked to raise one other matter. I appreciate from looking at the Rules that there is provision for application to be restored to the Register after a period of ten months from the date of erasure.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MISS LANG: I am not sure whether the Committee would think it is appropriate to respond to this question or not, but does the dishonest act which you have said goes to the root of Mr. Cornwell’s relationship with the Council – is it such that it would be inappropriate for him to re-apply or to consider re-applying?

THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be enormously difficult for the tribunal to say anything which could in any way fetter its discretion in properly coming to a decision in a year’s time.

MR. MOAT: I think that has to be right as a matter of law. I do not think we can really add very much more than that at the present time.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you; and that concludes the business for the tribunal for today. Thank you very much.

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: This disciplinary case heard by the Disciplinary Committee of the Hearing Aid Council on 9th February 2004 relates to Mr. Falkus who is employed by Advanced Hearing Services Ltd.

On 23rd January 2002 he tested Mr. Taylor’s hearing and recommended the purchase of two Siemens half shell digital class hearing aids. Mr. Taylor had requested an upgrade from analogue to digital hearing aids. This was not provided by Mr. Falkus.

We have considered the mitigation with care, and in particular the less than clear information provided by Siemens in connection with the hearing aid. In the light of that mitigation and the plea, we are satisfied that Mr. Falkus should, with respect to the charge that he failed to give best possible advice to his client, suffer a penalty of £1,000 and costs of £500.

Other breaches which occurred on that occasion were with respect to Rule 5 in that Mr. Taylor had a noise induced hearing loss. However, on investigating that matter it is clear that this was a very old noise induced hearing loss for which he had already received ample medical advice. Accordingly, we view this as a matter which should only merit an admonishment and not any penalty. Accordingly, with respect to this charge, we admonish him and impose £250 costs.

Charge 3 relating to this transaction requires that the dispenser must provide the client with details of the make and model of the hearing aid supplied. With respect to that matter we impose a penalty of £500 and costs of £250.

Accordingly, we impose total penalties of £1,500 and £1,000 costs against Mr. Falkus to be paid by 4 pm on 10th March.

With respect to his employer and the breach of Rule 12 of the Hearing Aid Council Code of Practice, which is an obligation to ensure that employed registered hearing aid dispensers comply with the Code, we impose a penalty of £1,500 and costs of £1,000 to be paid on the same timescale.

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you everybody. I apologise for the delay, we took rather longer considering this matter.

We have considered the submissions we`ve heard this morning, the revised charges and the factual basis upon which the pleas were entered and I will turn first to the case of Mr. Anderson:

In respect of charge 3 - medical advice - we impose a penalty of £3,000.
In respect of charge 4 - make and model - penalty of £500.
In respect of charge 5 - the guarantee - £500.
In respect of charge 9 - make and model - £500.
In respect of charge 11 - guarantee - £500.
In respect of charge 15 - the revised audiometer charge - we impose a penalty of £5,000.
And in respect of charge 16 - the revised charge with respect to Mrs. Craske`s hearing aid - we impose a penalty of £1,000.

That, together with costs of £15,000, comes to the sum of £26,000.

As to payment, we require payment of £500 per month from the 1st April. In default of payment for one month, the whole sum will become payable.

We note the proposals with respect to Mr. Anderson`s training, which we welcome. We consider that this training should be in excess of his CPD requirements for the HAC when they come into force, or his other professional requirements and we recommend that this training and his learning outcomes from the training be validated by an independent assessor.

MR. MOAT: Is that from the 1st April 2004, sir?

THE CHAIRMAN: The payments from the 1st April 2004.

MR. MOAT: So the first payment is to be made by 4pm on the 1st April 2004?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is correct. The independent assessor nominated by the chair of the examining body.

If I now turn to the case of Mr. Jolly. In recognition, and we recognise in coming to our decisions the fact that Mr. Jolly from an early stage entered appropriate pleas in respect of these charges or their predecessors:

In respect of charge 1 - the audiometer - an admonition.
In respect of charge 2 - Clause 11, make and model - £500.
In respect of charge 3 - Clause 19, the guarantee - £500.
In respect of charge 6 - best advice under Clause 3 - £5,000.
In respect of charges 7, 8, 9 and 10 - Clauses 11 and 19 - we admonish Mr. Jolly.
In respect of charge 11 - best advice - £1,500.
In respect of charge 12 - Clause 3, best advice - £500.
In respect of charges 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 - audiometer, make and model and guarantee - we admonish.
In respect of charge 19, £500.
In respect of charge 21, £2,000.

Which gives a total of £10,500, with costs of £5,000. This makes a total of £15,500.

We note his ability to pay £2,000 immediately. Accordingly we direct payment of £2,000 within 28 days, thereafter payments of £400 per month during 2004 and £500 per month thereafter. In case of default, one month`s default, the entire sum becomes payable forthwith.

Turning now to the case of Mr. Gill. We have considered very carefully the able mitigation put forward by Mr. Donne and the factual basis upon which the pleas are tendered. We note that in respect of charge 2 that Mr. Gill accepts responsibility for the practice of the hearing aid audiologists employed by Harley St. Hearing Aid company.

In respect of charge 2 we impose a penalty of £5,000 and suspend Mr. Gill from the Register for a period of three months.
In respect of charge 3, we impose a penalty of £5,000 and suspend Mr. Gill from the Register for a period of three months to run concurrently with the first suspension.
In respect of charge 4, we impose a penalty of £3,000.
And in respect of charge 7, we impose a penalty of £5,000, making a total of £18,000.
We also award costs in the sum of £25,000, producing a total of £43,000 payable within 56 days.
The suspension is to take place immediately.

MR. DONNE: I am not sure they can take effect immediately, I think there is a 28 day period in which an appeal can be lodged.

THE CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DONNE: And it will only take effect either if the Committee receive notice that there is to be no appeal, or an appeal is withdrawn or is unsuccessful.

THE CHAIRMAN: That effectively means in the absence of action, the 2nd January.

That concludes the business of today with respect to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Jolly and Mr. Gill.

MR. DONNE: Can I mention one matter, and this is not intended to be impertinent or go behind your rulings, but the period of 56 days in weeks that you have allowed to pay is precisely the period of time in which I said he really can`t pay.

MR. MOAT: My understanding from Mr. Donne, when you mitigated, was you said any payments were to be made from the 1st February?

MR. DONNE: Not before the 1st February. I was a bit concerned you might have misconstrued that, because the period was precisely that which I said was the one in which he couldn`t pay.

THE CHAIRMAN: Not 56 days to pay. What were your proposals, can you remind me?

MR. DONNE: Of course it entirely depends on the amount of the total, which is £43,000, if I am correct in my maths. Six months is what I asked for from the 1st February.

THE CHAIRMAN: Three months from the 1st February.

MR. DONNE: Thank you, sir.

MR. MOAT: Is that for all the payments to be made by —

THE CHAIRMAN: All the payments by the 1st May.

(A short time later)

THE CHAIRMAN: We have carefully deliberated on the matter before us and we find the case proved against Ambassador Hearing Healthcare PLC, formerly known as Harley St. Hearing Aid Centres PLC, in respect of all charges, except charge 33 which we believe was dropped at an earlier stage.

We have viewed this as a matter of considerable gravity that the company has systematically traded for many years in serious persistent and widespread breach of the Code of Practice of the Hearing Aid Council to the serious detriment of many, many consumers.

In respect of the various charges we find, we make the following award of penalties:

Charge 1, £1,000.
Charge 2, £5,000.
Charge 3, £3,000.
Charge 6, £5,000.
Charge 7, £5,000.
Charge 8, £5,000.
Charge 9, £5,000.
Charge 10, £3,000.
Charge 11, £5,000.
Charge 12, £5,000.
Charge 13, £1,000.
Charge 14, £5,000.
Charge 15, £5,000.
Charge 16, £5,000.
Charge 17, £3,000.
Charge 21, £3,000.
Charge 22, £5,000.
Charge 23, £3,000.
Charge 27, £5,000.
Charge 29, £3,000.
Charge 31, £5,000.
Charge 32, £3,000.
Making a total of £88,000 in penalties.

We award costs of £85,000 against the Respondent company, making a total of £173,000 and we direct that the company be struck off the Register of Employers of registered hearing aid dispensers.

MR. MOAT: Is the striking off in respect of all of the offences, or is it specifically in respect of any particular offences?

THE CHAIRMAN: It is in respect of numbers 31 and 32, specific global offences with respect to trading practice.

MISS CLOVER: Can I just raise, in relation to charge 33, I wondered if there has been a confusion; this was the advertisement where the incorrect phraseology was used?

MR. THOMAS: I thought it was withdrawn.

MR. MOAT: I don`t think it really makes any difference.

MISS CLOVER: It doesn`t really, but it hasn`t been withdrawn.

MR. REID: The person that brought it has withdrawn.

MR. MOAT: I think we`ve reached the position now the decision has been made, a not guilty verdict has been found on it, it is irrelevant.

MISS CLOVER: That is absolutely fine.

THE CHAIRMAN: This concludes a fairly lengthy investigation hearing. Thank you very much. We will now proceed to draw lessons from it.

A full transcript is
attached.

Decision :THE CHAIRMAN: The Disciplinary Committee has considered the three charges brought against Mr. Ian Norquay at the instigation of Mrs. F.L. Wood. They find Charge 1, breach of Rule 9(b), proven and they admonish Mr. Norquay for that breach.

On Charge 2, breach of Rule 11(e), they find the breach proven and impose a fine of £500 and award costs against Mr. Norquay of £250.

In respect of Charge 3, breach of Rule 9(a) of the Code of Practice, we find the breach proved. We impose a fine of £500 and we award costs of £250 against Mr. Ian Norquay.

That means a total figure of £1,500 to be paid by Mr. Norquay. Is there any request for time to pay?

MR. REID: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: In that case to be paid within 28 days.

Full transcript
attached.

Full transcript
attached.

Full transcript
attached.

Full transcript attached for the two days of this hearing.

Day 1

Day 2

See
attached document.

Charges :

Adjourned to 05.09.03