Peter Ingle reflects on how the GDC found their own charges against a registrant, and dropped them immediately at trial

The GDC’s record on manage the Fitness to Practice (FtP) process remains a concern. There have been some signs that the Council recognise this, and are making efforts to improve their performance. But a recent case – where the finding was ‘no case to answer’ – raises further questions, including whether it should have been pursued in the first place.

It began when a representative of a patient complained to the GDC regarding their treatment by a dentist, but this particular complaint did not proceed beyond the initial stages of the FtP process - presumably because the GDC concluded that it did not hold a reasonable prospect of being upheld.

But this was not the end of the case, because the GDC’s initial investigation clearly went far beyond the treatment issues. The Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination found that: ‘During the initial investigation, the GDC caseworker identified further concerns relating the practice’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration status.’

This seems to confirm many dentists’ suspicion that once a complaint has been received by the GDC, even at the initial stage, it is open season, and caseworkers will trawl beyond the issues raised by the complaint in search for material that will allow a case to be constructed.

By the time the case had reached the FtP committee, the only charges were around the alleged provision of CQC regulated activities while not being registered to do so, and an alleged failure to maintain a correct and up-to-date address with the CQC.

During the first substantive day of proceedings, Counsel for the GDC submitted a preliminary application to amend the charge by inserting a date – suggesting that this rather important detail had been overlooked in the building of the case.

But its second preliminary application was far more consequential – to withdraw the charge in its entirety.

GDC counsel said the registrant and the owner of another dental practice provided witness statements confirming the registrant was operating under an associate agreement with other practice owner at the time of the charge. This was relevant to the question of CQC registration.

Back in December 2025, the GDC expert witness, who has expertise in clinical governance, had said that if it came to light that the registrant was working at the clinic in another capacity other than director of the practice, this might change their expert opinion – and specified the example of working as an associate at another practice.

So when the expert witness was provided with the witness statements, his updated opinion was that the evidence did not support the factual allegations set out by the GDC, leading its counsel

The initial complaint arrived at the GDC in October 2023, with the registrant likely receiving his ‘Dear John’ letter soon after. The hearing with its ‘no case to answer’ decision took place in April 2026.

After two and a half year of stress, the dentist is finally able to put this experience behind them. At the time of writing, the dentist’s registration of the GDC’s website carries this endorsement under their registration history: ‘On 8 April 2026, the Professional Conduct Committee accepted the GDC’s application to withdraw the charge and offer no evidence. The case against is concluded.’

The final part of the determination contains the following line: ‘The Committee was satisfied that no injustice would be caused to either party from this course of action.’

The registrant who spent over two years with a live FtP process hanging over them, and the thousands of registrants who funded the whole process through their annual GDC fees, might beg to differ.