Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,

RE: GMC MPTS concealing GMC false accusations at FTP hearings

Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions, between the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) and General Medical Council (GMC) in relation to the increasing practice of not publishing or formally documenting erroneous accusations by the GMC prosecution at Interim Order Tribunals and, Medical Practitioners Tribunals. To help with expected clarification request, for example but not restricted to; verbal GMC-false-accusations such as factitious arrests / convictions / experiences / events / regulations or breaking-conditions… when made by the General Medical Council. As this appears almost always removed from any written output of any case, including both private and public outcome documents where it is clear the GMC were at fault/deceptive and it has been a significant discussion / incident point during a (recorded!!!) hearing. Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions for this common occurrence, to selectively remove the related written text in determinations, findings or summary by the MPTS. This is in general and not specific to any case but you may judge some of the specific cases merit disclosures due to the way legal opinions are made.

REQUEST; Please can you provide agreements or documents, including legal opinions, between the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and General Medical Council; in relation to general concealing / omitting / discounting / not publishing or formally documenting erroneous accusations by the GMC prosecution at Interim Order Tribunals and Medical Practitioners Tribunals.

I look forward to your response within 20 working days as outlined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 statute.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Ali

Dear FOI at MPTS,

I understand a reply should have been made by within a reasonable period of time, 20 working days was on 9 July 2021, a reply has not been sent. Please provide information sought or an update on timescale.

Failure to provide information can lead to a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office. Please see the following https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio... as it can lead to https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Lauren Barrowcliffe - GMC Information Access Team Assistant,

Your MPTS Ref: IR1-3092755466

You are processing requests for more than one organisation and have more than one request. You may wish to start mixing them together but I would prefer that you keep them separated; as that is good data practice.

I would also prefer you to address me correctly. If you would like to be addressed differently please do let me know.

Further to your email 14 July (today) email, your acknowledgement for the original 13th June request was not sent 28 June as you state, but 15th June from yourself for this request. You have typos or wrong dates. If it helps, the reference you used in the email is IR1-3092755466. Hence the passed 9th July date is 20 working day.

A prompting email was sent 10th July 2021 for this request. It appears the reminder is being treated as an internal appeal. I presume my original request was refused or you have escalated as such. I thus expect another reply ideally within 20 working days from 10 July 2021.

Further, your attachment in today's email references a request 24 June which is not part of this specific request to the MPTS. I understand you also took the liberty of adding an email 13 July to forward to Julian Greaves, which appears irrelevant to this request. Again, please can you keep requests separate and not mix them up.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Julian Graves (0161 923 6351),

Thank you for your email and attachment. My request specifically to the MPTS is concluded.

You highlight that the above information is not held by the GMC, or as some of your colleagues try to suggest in being separate organisations, not held by neither organisation given similar replies. The MPTS is clearly a part of the GMC and the two requests show that not only are they one functional body by statute/law one body but share various other departments such as your Information Access Team, hence you provide the same reply to both requests.

This does raise the very serious concern, why is this apparent concealing behaviour being done by the MPTS on behalf of the GMC if there has been no such agreement and the behaviour would not be done if there was a concern of a doctor - whilst doctors ultimately pay all your salaries from fees collected. I will correspond further in the GMC thread www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mpts_conc...

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali