HCPC determination — substantive hearing
Formally warned
The regulator’s term: warning
What does “formally warned” mean?
A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.
Concerning Karl Taber, paramedic (HCPC PA43998).
Decision date: 3 December 2025 · Hearing started 2 December 2025 and ended 3 December 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel decided that Karl Taber should be subject to the published outcome from a final hearing. The panel issued a caution or warning. The public page records the profession, registration number, allegation, finding, order, notes and hearing history for source verification.
Charges
The HCPTS allegation section states: which could have significant consequences for the Registrant both personally and professionally if it was found proved. The Panel therefore looked critically at all the evidence before it. 83. There was no other evidence before the Panel that supported Colleague A’s account of events, such as her being logged into a computer, telephone data, text or other messages, or any evidence of her being seen at the ambulance station either immediately before or after the incident. 84. The Panel noted that Colleague A did not report the incident immediately. The Panel acknowledged and accepted that this delay did not mean that her account of events could not be relied upon. However, the passage of time before reporting the complaint has led to uncertainty and confusion about key details in the timeline. The Panel could not be satisfied on the evidence that the details as recalled by Colleague A were accurate and not influenced by other factors such as her conversations with others. Whilst the Panel accepted that there would be inconsistencies in Colleague A’s account, it was striking that in her witness statement and oral evidence to this Panel, Colleague A stated that there had been no flirtation and no exchange of text messages when she had accepted that there was some flirtation in her earlier accounts. The Panel considered that it was likely that this aspect had been played down in Colleague A’s recollection of the events and her view of the Registrant. 85. The Panel also took into account that although there was evidence that the Registrant was “flirty” and had made a sexual comment to both Colleague A and Colleague B, there was no evidence that his conduct had ever escalated beyond a verbal nature. In his evidence before the Panel, the Registrant maintained his account and...
Findings
The HCPTS page records a final hearing for Karl Taber by the Conduct and Competence Committee. The panel issued a caution or warning. The allegation section states: which could have significant consequences for the Registrant both personally and professionally if it was found proved. The Panel therefore looked critically at all the evidence before it. 83. There was no other.... The order section states: comes into effect. Notes No.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published HCPC 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.