Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes off Houman Motamedi
The hearing aid dispenser was struck off for repeated assessment, record-keeping and referral failures affecting vulnerable patients.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 11 October 2024 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 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 Houman Motamedi, hearing aid dispenser (Health and Care Professions Council HAD02888).
Decision date: 11 October 2024 · Hearing started 7 October 2024 and ended 11 October 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that hearing aid dispenser Houman Motamedi communicated unprofessionally and repeatedly failed to follow fundamental assessment, record-keeping and referral procedures. Numerous vulnerable patients were affected and some required recall. With limited insight, insufficient remediation and a continuing risk of harm, the panel struck him off.
Charges
Mr Motamedi was alleged to have communicated unprofessionally with a complainant and repeatedly failed to complete required hearing assessments, use complete clinical templates, document decisions, make referrals and complete patient questionnaires.
Findings
The panel found all areas amounted to misconduct, with repeated failures in fundamental assessment, recording and referral affecting numerous vulnerable patients. It found limited insight, insufficient remediation, risk of repetition and impairment on personal and public grounds. With no confidence in conditions or suspension, it struck him off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
No previous regulatory findings; a limited degree of insight into Particular 1 and regret expressed about the Complainant's experience; the Registrant said he had undertaken relevant courses and reflection, although this evidence was not before the Panel.
Aggravating factors
A pattern of disregard for proper assessment, testing and referral procedures; patients were exposed to a risk of potential harm; the Registrant dealt with a vulnerable patient group; unprofessional and unethical behaviour towards the Complainant; concerns about the Registrant's attitude across the remaining particulars; a significant number of patients had to be recalled for further assessment.
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.