Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS strikes off Asima P Rafeeq over dishonest hearing-aid charges

The HCPTS panel ordered Asima P Rafeeq's striking off after finding dishonest invoicing and excessive hearing-aid charges. It found the £11,900 deposit cheque had not cleared and did not establish lack of competence.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 7 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.

Concerning Asima P Rafeeq, hearing aid dispenser (Health and Care Professions Council HAD02905).

Decision date: 7 July 2026 · Hearing started 29 June 2026 and ended 7 July 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel found that Asima P Rafeeq dishonestly charged an excessive £34,000 for hearing aids and accepted an inflated deposit, whose cheque did not clear. It ordered striking off, with a separate interim suspension during the appeal period. An audiogram failing was proved but did not amount to misconduct, and lack of competence was not established. The other proved matters amounted to misconduct.

Charges

The allegations concerned an inaccurate audiogram, selection of hearing aids not clinically indicated, misleading invoices, an excessive £34,000 charge and acceptance of an inflated £11,900 deposit. Dishonesty for personal financial gain was alleged concerning the invoices, charge and deposit.

Findings

The panel found particulars 1–6 proved. The audiogram failing in particular 1 did not amount to misconduct; lack of competence was not established because there was no reasonable sample of work. Particulars 2–6 amounted to misconduct, including dishonesty for personal financial gain. The deposit cheque did not clear; the panel nevertheless found that accepting and pursuing it satisfied particular 5. It found current impairment on personal and public grounds, no evidence of insight or remediation, and a high risk of repetition. It ordered striking off and a separate interim suspension for up to 18 months to cover the appeal period. This was a rehearing; the earlier panel's impartiality had been challenged and its decision was not treated as current findings.

Mitigating factors

i) Isolated act in so much as it involved a single service user.

Aggravating factors

i) The conduct took place over several daysii) The Registrant has demonstrated a lack of insight iii) There was a potential of financial harm to Patient Aiv) Patient A was a vulnerable service user v) The Registrant has demonstrated no remorse vi) The Registrant has demonstrated no remediation.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.