Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
GDC tribunal erases dentist Kacper Latos over poor patient care and non-cooperation
The General Dental Council's Professional Conduct Committee has ordered the erasure of dentist Kacper Jakub Latos, finding his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct after he provided a poor standard of care to a patient over three years and failed to cooperate with the regulator.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 24 June 2026 · Updated 8 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 8 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 Kacper Jakub Latos, dentist (General Dental Council 289372).
Decision date: 24 June 2026 · Hearing started 15 June 2026 and ended 24 June 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that dentist Kacper Jakub Latos should be erased from the dental register. On 24 June 2026, the Professional Conduct Committee found his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct, ruling that he provided a poor standard of care to a patient over three years, failed to obtain informed consent, permitted an unregistered former dentist to treat her, and did not cooperate with the GDC. The committee ordered erasure and imposed an immediate suspension covering the appeal period.
Charges
The Professional Conduct Committee considered amended charges that, being registered as a dentist, Mr Latos' fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. It found proved that, between August 2020 and August 2023, he failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Patient A — including insufficient pre-treatment investigations, insufficient treatment planning, his radiographic practice, not discussing the full risks of treatment, and not diagnosing the need for further treatment — provided a poor standard of treatment and care, and failed to obtain informed consent. It also found that, between 14 June 2024 and 8 April 2025, he failed to co-operate with GDC investigations by not providing evidence of indemnity or employment information. Earlier charges relying on hearsay evidence from the Care Quality Commission were not admitted and were removed.
Findings
The Committee found the remaining charges proved. It accepted expert evidence that Mr Latos' care of Patient A fell far below the standard expected and that, as the practice's Registered Manager and director, he was responsible for permitting an unregistered, previously erased former dentist to treat her. It determined the facts amounted to misconduct, finding actual and ongoing harm to Patient A and breaches of numerous professional standards. The Committee determined that his fitness to practise is currently impaired on the grounds of public protection and the public interest, citing a lack of insight, remorse and remediation, an attitudinal problem, and a high risk of repetition. It concluded that erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction, and imposed an immediate suspension order to cover the appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Committee identified these mitigating factors: relative good character, as no finding of misconduct was made at the previous fitness to practise investigation; Mr Latos held indemnity insurance during part of the relevant period, having provided it to the GDC in 2024; he accepted, without formal admission, that he did not provide employment information when requested, and gave a specific reason; and he engaged with the process to a limited extent through an email dated 12 June 2026 setting out his broad defence.
Aggravating factors
The Committee identified these aggravating factors: Mr Latos had previously been investigated for similar allegations, leading to advice being issued; actual and ongoing serious harm was caused to Patient A; there was financial gain, notably a focus on cosmetic 'Hollywood Smile' work while failing to provide essential treatment for Patient A's needs; he showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the GDC by not engaging with its investigation; the misconduct was sustained over a significant period; and there was a complete lack of evidence of insight, remorse and remediation.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings 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.