Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Richard Bowley, doctor (General Medical Council 4008923).
Decision date: 12 June 2026 · Hearing started 8 June 2026 and ended 12 June 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Richard Bowley, a doctor, dishonestly claimed payments under an income protection insurance policy by declaring on a claim form that he had not worked and could not work as a GP, when he had in fact been working as a locum GP. It found his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct. The tribunal, which also reviewed an existing suspension for improperly accessing a colleague's medical records, directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register.
Charges
The GMC alleged that between 26 January 2022 and 6 October 2023 Dr Bowley worked as a locum GP at Brent Area Medical Centre and, on one or more occasions in July to August 2023, at Cheddar Medical Practice; that on 13 June 2024 he submitted a Continuing Claim Form to his income protection insurer stating he had not undertaken any work between October 2020 and June 2024 and that his health had prevented him from working as a GP since October 2020, in order to claim payments under the policy; that he completed the form in this way knowing he had worked and that his health had not prevented him from working as a GP; and that his actions were dishonest. The Tribunal also reviewed an existing suspension imposed for unlawfully accessing a colleague's medical records.
Findings
The Tribunal found all paragraphs of the allegation proved, determining that Dr Bowley made false declarations on his continuing claim form when he knew he had been working and was fit to work, and that by the standards of ordinary decent people this was dishonest. It found his fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct, placing the dishonesty at the higher end of seriousness as deliberate, planned and involving significant sums claimed while acting as a doctor. The Tribunal also reviewed the suspension imposed in March 2025 and continued in November 2025 for unlawfully accessing a colleague's medical records; finding no evidence of insight or remediation and continued non-engagement, it held that his fitness to practise remained impaired in that matter, with a high ongoing risk to public protection.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service 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.