Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS panel suspends Mark Fraser Edgar over dishonest expense claims

An HCPTS panel suspended hearing aid dispenser Mark Fraser Edgar for 12 months after finding he dishonestly submitted duplicate and personal expense claims over many years.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 29 August 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year

Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.

Concerning Mark Fraser Edgar, hearing aid dispenser (Health and Care Professions Council HAD00451).

Decision date: 29 August 2025 · Hearing started 27 August 2025 and ended 29 August 2025

In plain English

The HCPTS panel found that hearing aid dispenser Mark Fraser Edgar dishonestly claimed personal and duplicate expenses from his employer over many years, including vouchers, mobile phone accounts, taxis, tyres, parking and hotels. It did not prove that claimed meals were personal expenses. The panel found misconduct and current impairment, imposed a 12-month suspension and made an 18-month interim suspension order for any appeal.

Charges

It was alleged that between 2008 and 2021 the Registrant submitted duplicate claims and claimed reimbursement for personally used vouchers, phone accounts for non-employees and personal taxis, tyres, parking, hotels and meals. Further allegations concerned misleading expense categories and descriptions, including staff incentives and an 'Employee secret Santa present'. The claims were alleged to be dishonest and to amount to misconduct and impairment.

Findings

The Panel found the admitted duplicate, voucher, phone, taxi, categorisation and description allegations proved. It also proved claims for tyres, parking and hotels, but did not prove that claimed meals were personal expenses. It found dishonesty in relation to all proved particulars, misconduct and current impairment on personal and public grounds. It imposed a 12-month suspension and an 18-month interim suspension for any appeal.

Mitigating factors

the Registrant had admitted some of his conduct in the internal investigation and had admitted several of the factual particulars at the start of the hearing. This had included an admission of dishonest conduct in relation to one of the particulars. The Registrant had referred himself to the HCPC and had fully co-operated with both the internal investigation and the HCPC’s processes. there had been a period of years since the events in question, during which the Registrant had established his own new business and there was no suggestion to the Panel of any subsequent concerns. the Registrant had displayed some insight in his written reflections, referring to a recognition of the need for integrity in practice and a dedication to transparency and accountability for his actions. He had indicated, when cross-examined in the hearing, a broader acceptance of his dishonesty than had been indicated in his written reflections. The Panel had concluded that the Registrant’s insight was still developing and not complete. There was no suggestion in the Allegation of any issues with the Registrant’s clinical practice, or of any direct harm occasioned to patients. The Panel noted the practical steps and intentions that the Registrant told the Panel he had applied to his new business, and the Registrant’s current positive conduct in practice was supported by the testimonials provided.

Aggravating factors

the high value of the amount of expenses which had been illegitimately claimed and the long period over which the misconduct had occurred. The Registrant’s misconduct had been with the purpose of intentionally obtaining personal benefit and had been repeated misconduct carried out in numerous ways. the misconduct was aggravated by a lack of demonstrated remorse or apology. It took due account of the Registrant’s right to defend the allegations. However, it noted that there was a limitation to the demonstration of insight developed by the Registrant in the time since the Panel’s determination on facts had been handed down. The Panel had found that the Registrant lacked complete insight, particularly in relation to the impact of his misconduct on public confidence in the profession as a whole, and the apparent minimisation of the nature and scale of the dishonesty.

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.