MPT Postponements
Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,
RE: MPT Postponements
It is unfortunately becoming clear that certain MPTS panels repeatedly use postponements as an extra suspension-punishment and refuse to give reasons for their decisions, which appears to be becoming a trend. From my experience it is clear that panels have a significantly high threshold for short postponements at a doctors/defence request, but a very low/non-existent threshold for postponements at the GMC/prosecution request. Given the lack of equality of arms, in exploring this for a judicial review directed by the last MPT panel whom refused to justify multiple postponements, I request the following data under the FOIA from MPT Hearings:
1. How many postponements were self-granted to the MPTS panel in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
2. How many postponements were granted to doctors/defence in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
3. How many postponements were granted to GMC/prosecution in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
This is a request with a specific lawful purpose but we note historically if Mr Greaves of the GMC, becomes involved the FOIA will be vexatiously refused. I would be grateful if the response can be provided within 20 working days without need for prompting or internal review or complaint to the ICO. I would like you to provide the information in an electronic as a pdf or open document format. As always please do not hesitate to contact me should you require clarification. Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Dr S. Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc
Between Friday 23 December and Tuesday 3 January, this inbox is being
monitored intermittently, so it may take us longer than usual to respond.
If your enquiry is urgent please call 0161 923 6263.
Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,
This is a reminder for this 'MPT Postponements' request. I notice you have not assigned a reference number which increases the chance of delays beyond 20 workings days.
Yours sincerely,
Dr S. Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc
Dear S Ali,
Your information request – IR1-3793477421
Thank you for your email dated 28 December, in which you ask for the
below:
1. How many postponements were self-granted to the MPTS panel in
2020, 2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
2. How many postponements were granted to doctors/defence in 2020,
2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
3. How many postponements were granted to GMC/prosecution in 2020,
2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
Your request has been forward to the Information Access Team for us to
respond to.
How we will consider your request
We are going to consider your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). The FOIA gives us 20 working days to respond, but we’ll come
back to you as soon as we can.
Who to contact
Mark Ellen will be handling your request. If you have any questions you
can contact him via email at [1][email address].
Yours sincerely
Lauren Barrowcliffe
Information Access Team Assistant
[2][email address]
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: S. Ali <[3][FOI #931863 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 December 2022, 22:49
To: Enquiries <[4][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - MPT Postponements
Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,
RE: MPT Postponements
It is unfortunately becoming clear that certain MPTS panels repeatedly use
postponements as an extra suspension-punishment and refuse to give reasons
for their decisions, which appears to be becoming a trend. From my
experience it is clear that panels have a significantly high threshold for
short postponements at a doctors/defence request, but a very
low/non-existent threshold for postponements at the GMC/prosecution
request. Given the lack of equality of arms, in exploring this for a
judicial review directed by the last MPT panel whom refused to justify
multiple postponements, I request the following data under the FOIA from
MPT Hearings:
1. How many postponements were self-granted to the MPTS panel in
2020, 2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
2. How many postponements were granted to doctors/defence in 2020,
2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
3. How many postponements were granted to GMC/prosecution in 2020,
2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
This is a request with a specific lawful purpose but we note historically
if Mr Greaves of the GMC, becomes involved the FOIA will be vexatiously
refused. I would be grateful if the response can be provided within 20
working days without need for prompting or internal review or complaint to
the ICO. I would like you to provide the information in an electronic as a
pdf or open document format. As always please do not hesitate to contact
me should you require clarification. Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Dr S. Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit
for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by
autocorrect, formatting, etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #931863 email]
Is [6][email address] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[7]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
[10]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Dr Ali
Reference: IR1-3793477421
As you know, the request set out in your e-mail of 28 December 2022 has
been passed to me. I have now had the chance to look at your request under
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
The following table shows the number of MPTS postponements, broken down by
how each was granted.
An MPTS Case Manager can postpone a hearing where the ‘applicant’ is the
MPTS. This most often happens when a tribunal member is unable to attend
the hearing at very short notice and there are no other members available
to replace them, meaning that the hearing is not quorate and cannot take
place. It was this power that allowed the MPTS to postpone hearings during
the pandemic; that’s the reason for the large number of MPTS granted
postponements in 2020.
Sub Status Start #
Year Applications
Doctor - 2020 13
Granted 2021 36
2022 31
GMC - Granted 2020 15
2021 6
2022 4
Joint - 2022 1
Granted
MPTS - 2020 162
Granted 2021 1
2022 2
You have also asked for the lengths of these postponements. This
information is not held centrally – and our system does not enable us to
retrieve it electronically. Essentially, the only way to compile this
information would be to manually drill down into each case and carry out a
calculation as to the length of each postponement. The calculations would
be complicated by the fact that there will be instances where the case
hasn’t restarted and/or where there is more than one application to
postpone. Accordingly, I consider that the following FOI exemption
applies to this part of your request.
Section 12
This relates to FOI requests which would cost the public authority more
than £450 to process - equivalent to two and half days’ work.
The cost of your request
To estimate the cost we can take into account determining, locating,
retrieving and extracting the information requested. As mentioned above,
in order to answer your question about length of postponements, we would
need to manually check through the details of each record to determine the
length of such postponement. I estimate that it would take about 15
minutes to drill down into each record in order to try to determine this
information. The table I’ve provided shows that there are some 270
hearings which would need to be manually reviewed. Thus, such an exercise
would take more than 2.5 days and so the Section 12 exemption applies.
I’m sorry that I cannot answer all the questions you raise but I hope that
the information I am providing is of some help to you. You do have the
right of appeal against my use of the FOI exemption. If you want to
appeal, please set out your grounds for making such an appeal and e-mail
[1][mpts request email]. If such an appeal were unsuccessful, you’d have the
right of making a further appeal – to the Information Commissioner.
Further details about this will be given to you if applicable.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Ellen
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Direct Line: 0161 923 6347
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: S. Ali <[2][FOI #931863 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 December 2022, 22:49
To: Enquiries <[3][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - MPT Postponements
Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,
RE: MPT Postponements
It is unfortunately becoming clear that certain MPTS panels repeatedly use
postponements as an extra suspension-punishment and refuse to give reasons
for their decisions, which appears to be becoming a trend. From my
experience it is clear that panels have a significantly high threshold for
short postponements at a doctors/defence request, but a very
low/non-existent threshold for postponements at the GMC/prosecution
request. Given the lack of equality of arms, in exploring this for a
judicial review directed by the last MPT panel whom refused to justify
multiple postponements, I request the following data under the FOIA from
MPT Hearings:
1. How many postponements were self-granted to the MPTS panel in 2020,
2021 and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
2. How many postponements were granted to doctors/defence in 2020, 2021
and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
3. How many postponements were granted to GMC/prosecution in 2020, 2021
and 2022, and what were the lengths of postponements
This is a request with a specific lawful purpose but we note historically
if Mr Greaves of the GMC, becomes involved the FOIA will be vexatiously
refused. I would be grateful if the response can be provided within 20
working days without need for prompting or internal review or complaint to
the ICO. I would like you to provide the information in an electronic as a
pdf or open document format. As always please do not hesitate to contact
me should you require clarification. Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Dr S. Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit
for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by
autocorrect, formatting, etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #931863 email]
Is [5][email address] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[6]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
[9]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service's handling of my FOI request 'MPT Postponements'.
You have calculated that gathering this information will exceed the cost limit, but I believe that this is an overestimation of the resource required. Figures despite having to look at more extra cases from the website than from the back end, e.g. for the last year are easy to find from the first page of each judgement that has postponed. 2022 has taken 30mins. I would do this myself but do not have access to all judgements for 2020 and 2021. Despite GMC denials of the pandemic as and when it suits your organisation, understanding the data is skewed for 2020 due to the pandemic, it is still clear it would require less than 1 minute for me and upto 2 minutes for your to per case to read the first few lines of the first page of a pdf, this is about 4.5 hours of manual work, this is a lot less than 2.5 days even with significant breaks.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][mpts request email]
Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.
Dear Dr Ali,
IR: IR1-3809098773
Thank you for your email dated 26^th January 2023.
We will be considering your email as a Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) appeal. We have a target response time of 20 working days. We will
endeavour to respond to you within this timeframe.
Julian Graves will be handling your request. If you have any questions you
can contact him via email at [1][email address] .
Yours Sincerely,
Alex Mason
Information Access Administrator
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Dear FOI and Mr Mason,
Reference: IR1-3793477421 Internal Appeal
Thank you for your email. As you know Mr Julian Greaves has a history of notorious negative actions on behalf of the GMC with evidence at the courts with several other doctors. I have already had multiple correspondences with Mr Andrew Ledgard his line manager and no doubt, Mr Ledgard will personally email me or make directions, despite this request being to the MPTS department. I do not feel it is appropriate to involve Mr Greaves, you may wish to reflect on the original request in anticipation of common GMC practices. I cannot stop you using him as the outcome of this internal review request is predictable. However, I register my ongoing concern.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][mpts request email]
Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.
Dear GMC IAT,
Reference: IR1-3793477421 Internal Appeal
I try to only respond to one GMC item per day. It is 87 working days since my original request and 42 working days from the internal review request. The Information Commissioner’s Office recommends that public authorities carry out internal reviews within 20 working days. You have not responded and this continues to raise concerns of persistent failures to respond. All FOIA requests should be handled appropriately and in a timely way. This encourages public trust and confidence and ensures organisations stay on the right side of the law.
Given ongoing bad-GMC-practice, there is both an urgency given yet another parallel high court case against the GMC and complaints to both the Charities commission and ICO in general of your organisation. As well as the Regulatory Chamber hearing having multiple complaints of the GMC and its IAT. Given my position, I highlight your department does need to reflect upon https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/d... Obviously if non-response continues, yet another complaint will be made to the ICO. Given bad-GMC-Practices, you may be breaching the Freedom of Information Act if you do any of the following:
-fail to respond adequately to a request for information;
-fail to adopt the model publication scheme, or do not publish the correct information; or
-deliberately destroy, hide or alter requested information to prevent it being released.
This last point is the only criminal offence in this Act that GMC individuals and the GMC as an organisation can be charged with. Other breaches of the FOIA are unlawful but not criminal. I look forward to a response obviously no doctor expects best practice from the GMC but we do demand compliance with the law.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][mpts request email]
Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.
Dear Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service,
RE: MPTS Postponement, GMC Ref: IR1-3793477421
Half the information requested has been provided. Within information already provided, as acknowledged, all the recent postponements by MPTS as applying party, are against me with a refusal to justify postponement after wasting time and considering non-medical issues mainly from GMC self-complaints and planned double-jeopardy and multiple jeopardy. Overall, this deprives the local community of an objective GMC-competent doctor recently tested by your colleagues. However I want the generic data for related legal purposes which you are being obstructive about given GMC-interest and I note the recent GMC prosecution correspondence with the court.
I would like postponement lengths for application for postponements by other doctors and GMC legal / prosecution. Thankfully the numbers become larger for older data which anonymises data and the cases are already identified. You are fully aware the data suggests both length and race disparity. The data from the MPTS website (first few lines of every case/pdf that says ‘postponed’ easy to identify) continues to suggests requestor and race disparity on the lengths of postponements, however only a year of data is objectively available. There is clearly not much work to do, to get related data for previous years and write on a peace of paper the lengths in each case. I am not asking you to split by ethnicity just by the requester as original request, but the FOIA request is refused. Despite the Public-Interest and the Professional-Interest, I am aware it is not in the GMC-Interest to provide access or anonymised data moreso as it may be used in the High Court against the GMC. That is not an acceptable reason to refuse to provide the data lawfully requested. I would also point out previous GMC chairs have confirmed racism at the GMC, recent ongoing lip service continues to be no different, the GMC essentially acknowledges its institutional racism, apart from to ensure unjust prosecution it is thus not in the GMC-interest to hide the data requested.
It has been a further two weeks and you have not responded from my last correspondence. The ICO have recently indirectly suggested earlier complaint at 6 weeks against the GMC given your habitual failure to respond in a timely manner. A complaint to the ICO has been made. You are fully aware of the rules and law, if not please refer to the ICO website. There is still a duty to provide the requested data which is still demanded. I hope you can provide the information soon without the need for the ICO to publicly issue another order against the GMC.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][mpts request email]
Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.
S. Ali left an annotation ()
The GMC MPTS department have failed to respond to an internal review 58 working days excluding holidays (112 days or 78 working days from original request). A good organisation response is within 20 working days including holidays. Obviously the GMC IAT continue to treat and actively exclude any request personally (not in their prosecution interest) plus show bad practice by not providing the minimum communication whilst there are several other request now also at the General Regulatory Chamber against the GMC (which they actively participate).
This request has been escalated to the ICO as another complaint against the GMC https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
Dear Dr Ali
I'm sorry that you've had to wait so long for my response on this matter.
Please find attached my appeal response.
Yours sincerely
Julian Graves
Julian Graves
Information Access Manager
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Tel. no: 0161 923 6351
Email: [email address]
Dear Mr Graves,
Thank you for the standard response. Please note your response will be used in a court. Having further considered the information you have supplied. I find it unreasonable for three reasons.
1. If original data was supplied by going through each file case one by one (unlikely ), then their is no reason not to tabulate the postponement lengths and provide this. So your argument about total time does not hold up. For the ICO: to manually go through cases only in the last year, open the pdf for each case where the outcome is 'Adjourned to a new tribunal' as the postponed outcome/marker and length have now been removed, on https://www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-dec...
2. Common-sense; Postponements cause delays and additional expense, although the greatest expense is on the doctor, your organisation/GMC/you can keep dossiers of doctor to take future action (on your own volition), the MPTS will clearly keep a record of postponement length which is the 'outcome of a case' as a resumption or new tribunal will need to be arranged. As such with Siebal and other databases, you do not need to manually go through every case (standard GMC excuse) but an experienced operator can run a query (which I presume is how the original data was found). I entertained Mr Ellen's wording and even went through the cases last year manually which took less than 1 minute per case but I did not consider Mr Ellen's competence and history, especially as the GMC no longer keep manual records but electronic records. It is thus reasonable and obvious the information can be provided efficiently but you again choose not to (see original request given expectation).
3. There is a duty upon you, in addition outside of the FOIA to provide the information. Given circumstances it is obvious there is a clear legal purpose and that the information would undermine further GMC legal (GMC MPTS is already undermined given unfairness).
I do not find the response satisfactory. You and your colleagues are already aware this cases has been escalated. We will have to await the ICO direction.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc
Dear Dr Ali
I write further to previous correspondance from both you and the ICO.
Notwithstanding that it took in excess of the appropriate limit to produce
the data contained in this response, we have decided to create it and
provide it to you so are withdrawing our reliance on S12.
Explanations and Background
It might be helpful to set out the following explanations by way of
background information, in the context that your request was in respect of
postponements:
A Postponement request is a formal application that can only be made prior
to the opening of the hearing. An application can be made by the MPTS or
either party (the doctor/their representative or the GMC). All
postponement applications are considered by a legally qualified MPTS Case
Manager. Therefore, as the hearing has yet to begin, this information will
not be included on any records of determination (RoD), because there isn’t
one and won’t be mentioned on the final ROD once the matter has been
concluded.
An Adjournment is a decision made by the tribunal once a hearing has
commenced. The decision can be of their own motion or on application by
either party. Where an application is made, considered and granted
immediately i.e. the application is made, considered and granted at the
start of the hearing, the hearing is considered not to have opened and a
future hearing will be scheduled to be sat by a new tribunal. Therefore,
as the hearing has yet to begin, this information will not be included on
the substantive RoD. The outcome for the hearing in which the application
was made is recorded as 'Adjourned to a new tribunal,' which is what you
referenced in your correspondance.
A hearing can be Adjourned part heard. This situation occurs when, for
whatever reason, the tribunal is unable to conclude the hearing in the
time allotted. In this event, the same tribunal will reconvene until a
conclusion can be reached. Therefore, because the hearing has begun, the
substantive RoD will include a list of start and end dates of each
occasion the tribunal sat.
It therefore follows that whatever information you were looking at on the
MPTS website which you referenced in your email to the ICO, it cannot have
been data about postponements in the above sense and therefore the timings
and methodology that you suggest are not relevant or accurate when
calculating the time taken to obtain the information you requested.
New Data and explanation
The MPTS have had a longstanding wish to collate the information you
requested and therefore have used your request as a reason to obtain it,
notwithstanding its complexity and the time involved, which I understand
was in excess of 20 hours - they were able to automate more of the process
than was thought possible when Mr Graves issued his response to you. The
below tables contain information about postponements as described above
and in line with the wording of your request but has been calculated using
different metrics to the data which was previously provided to you.
The points you need to understand about the new data are as follows, which
is why the numbers are not the same as previously provided:
• Data has been reported by the year the hearing was due to take place,
not by the year the postponement was granted, as the hearing start date
would be the beginning of the ‘postponement duration.’
• Where an applicant made more than one consecutive application this has
been counted as a single application and the duration combined. This
applies to all the data tables below.
• All data is correct as of 9 May 2023. Where a hearing is pending
listing, this date has been used as the end date of the postponement
application.
• Where a hearing was postponed within the data period (2020 – 2022), but
a previous request was granted prior to 2020, this hearing and associated
application(s) has been excluded from the data.
• Where an application was granted but an event caused the GMC to cancel
the hearing before it could be re-listed (i.e. there is no postponement
end date), this application has been excluded from the data. Where
applications have been received from multiple applicants, only that which
had no end date has been excluded. If this has left a single applicant,
this data has been moved to that table.
Below is a table of postponed hearings where total length of postponement
is due to applications by a single applicant type.
┌───────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┐
│Year & │Total number of │# Applications│Average days │Average │
│Applicant │days of │ │by application│months by │
│ │postponement │ │ │application│
├───────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2020 │
│ │
│ │
├───────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │2990 │7 │427 │14 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │2695 │8 │337 │11.1 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │27205 │124 │219 │7.2 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2020 Total │32890 │139 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2021 │
│ │
│ │
├───────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │5913 │17 │348 │11.4 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │1027 │4 │257 │8.4 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │112 │1 │112 │3.7 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2021 Total │7052 │22 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2022 │
│ │
│ │
├───────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │7219 │25 │289 │9.5 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │1723 │5 │345 │11.3 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │513 │2 │257 │8.4 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2022 Total │9455 │32 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├───────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│Grand Total│49397 │193 │ │ │
└───────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┘
The below table shows how each of these applications ended:
┌─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────┬──────┐
│Applicant│Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing│Totals│
│type │Cancelled│opened & │opened & │opened │re-listed│pending│ │
│ │by GMC │concluded│adjourned│and │ │listing│ │
│ │ │ │to new │adjourned│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │tribunal │part │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │heard │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│Doctor - │2 │18 │3 │7 │17 │2 │49 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│GMC - │5 │5 │1 │4 │1 │1 │17 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│MPTS – │6 │91 │4 │25 │1 │0 │127 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│Grand │13 │114 │8 │36 │19 │3 │193 │
│Totals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────┴──────┘
Below is a table of postponed hearings where total length of postponement
is due to applications of multiple application types.
┌────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┐
│Year & │Total number of │# Applications│Average days │Average │
│Applicant │days of │ │by application│months by │
│ │postponement │ │ │application│
├────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2020 │
├────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │112 │1 │112 │3.7 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │814 │6 │136 │4.5 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │3145 │15 │210 │6.9 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2020 Total │4071 │22 │ │ │
├────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2021 │
├────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │3947 │10 │395 │13 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │692 │2 │346 │11.4 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │146 │1 │146 │4.8 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2021 Total │4785 │13 │ │ │
├────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2022 │
├────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │868 │2 │434 │14.2 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │0 │0 │0 │0 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │0 │0 │0 │0 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2022 Total │868 │2 │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│Grand Totals│9724 │37 │ │ │
└────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┘
The below table shows how each of these applications ended:
┌─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────┬──────┐
│Applicant│Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing│Totals│
│type │Cancelled│opened & │opened & │opened │re-listed│re-listed│pending│ │
│ │by GMC │concluded│adjourned│and │& │ │listing│ │
│ │ │ │to new │adjourned│postponed│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │tribunal │part │by other │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │heard │applicant│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │type │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│Doctor - │0 │2 │1 │4 │3 │2 │1 │13 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│GMC - │0 │0 │0 │2 │6 │0 │0 │8 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│MPTS – │1 │2 │0 │0 │13 │0 │0 │16 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│Grand │1 │4 │1 │6 │22 │2 │1 │37 │
│Totals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────┴──────┘
The below table combines the two larger tables above:
┌────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┐
│Year & │Total number of │# Applications│Average days │Average │
│Applicant │days of │ │by application│months by │
│ │postponement │ │ │application│
├────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2020 │
│ │
│ │
├────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │3102 │8 │539 │17.7 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │3509 │14 │473 │15.5 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │30350 │139 │429 │14.1 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2020 Total │36961 │161 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2021 │
│ │
│ │
├────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │9860 │27 │743 │24.4 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │1719 │6 │603 │19.8 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │258 │2 │258 │8.5 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2021 Total │11837 │35 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┤
│2022 │
│ │
│ │
├────────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────┤
│Doctor - │8087 │27 │723 │23.7 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│GMC - │1723 │5 │345 │11.3 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│MPTS – │513 │2 │257 │8.4 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│2022 Total │10323 │34 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────┤
│Grand Totals│59121 │230 │ │ │
└────────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────┘
The below table shows how each of these applications ended:
┌─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────┬──────┐
│Applicant│Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing │Hearing│Totals│
│type │Cancelled│opened & │opened & │opened │re-listed│re-listed│pending│ │
│ │by GMC │concluded│adjourned│and │& │ │listing│ │
│ │ │ │to new │adjourned│postponed│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │tribunal │part │by other │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │heard │applicant│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │type │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│Doctor - │2 │20 │4 │11 │3 │19 │3 │62 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│GMC - │5 │5 │1 │6 │6 │1 │1 │25 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│MPTS – │7 │93 │4 │25 │13 │1 │0 │143 │
│Granted │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────┤
│Grand │14 │118 │9 │42 │22 │21 │4 │230 │
│Totals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────┴──────┘
I hope you find this helpful. This request has now been concluded.
---
Kind Regards
Matt
Matthew McCoig-Lees
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Email: [email address]
Website: www.gmc-uk.org
Tel: 0161 923 6579
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
S. Ali left an annotation ()
Sub Status - Year Applications, Granted
Doctor - 2020 13 [] 2021 36 [] 2022 31
GMC - 2020 15 [] 2021 6 [] 2022 4
Joint - 2020 XXX [] 2021 0 [] 2022 1
MPTS - 2020 162 [] 2021 1 [] 2022 2
Please note the above does not show the number of applications, just those granted.
The figures are further skewed as the applications tend to be in clusters against certain doctors, e.g. all MPTS postponements in 2022 and 2021 is for 1 doctor (mine, given postponements misuse by MPT panels). In 2020 a large number of MPTS and joint postponements were due to the pandemic, whilst being paid, less work was being done despite ability to work and spending of monies demanded from doctors.