Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS strikes Daniel Start off for sexual misconduct
The physiotherapist deliberately touched a service user during treatment and showed minimal insight or remediation.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 2 August 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 Daniel Start, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH97859).
Decision date: 2 August 2024 · Hearing started 31 July 2024 and ended 2 August 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel struck physiotherapist Daniel Start off after finding that he deliberately touched a service user's vagina during treatment for sexual gratification and also kept inadequate records. He arranged the appointment outside his employer's normal system. The panel found minimal insight, no meaningful remediation and a continuing risk to service users.
Charges
Mr Start maintained incomplete clinical records and, during physiotherapy treatment, repeatedly touched a service user's vagina and surrounding area over and under her underwear without clinical justification. The touching was alleged to be sexual in nature and sexually motivated.
Findings
The panel proved the record-keeping failures and found that Mr Start deliberately touched the service user in a sexual manner for sexual gratification. It found misconduct and current impairment, with minimal insight, no meaningful remediation and a continuing risk to service users. The sexual misconduct was fundamentally incompatible with registration, so he was struck off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
No fitness to practise history over a 12-year career as a physiotherapist; several favourable Google reviews, although the panel gave them little weight because they related to his hypnotherapy practice and the reviewers were unlikely to know of the allegations.
Aggravating factors
Breach of trust and abuse of his privileged professional position; predatory behaviour involving direct contact and an appointment outside accepted employer procedures; repeated poor record keeping and repeated sexual touching; limited evidence of insight, remorse or apology, particularly about the sexual misconduct; no meaningful remediation of either the sexual misconduct or record-keeping failings.
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.