maresfield report

The proposed regulation by the HPC is based on the premise that it will better protect the public than the current system of regulation which is carried out by organisations such as the UKCP and BACP, currently the major regulators for the psychotherapies. However, the HPC’s own figures show that it deals with relatively few complaints from the public and costs an extraordinary amount of money in the process.

In 2008/09 it spent £4.66m, 36% of its total budget, on complaints yet this only included 78 allegations from the public. 58 of these were dismissed and only 17 complaints were found to have a case to answer. £4.66m for 17 complaints works out at £274,000 per complaint with a case to answer. This does not compare favourably with the existing system for dealing with complaints from the public in the field of the psychotherapies.

As well as proving poor value for money, over the last three years the HPC has consistently processed about 30% less complaints than the allegations it has received. Also, the allegations made by members of the public are processed less quickly than allegations from any other category of complainant. A backlog will be building up due to the unwieldy nature of the system and its failure to respond appropriately.

By comparison, the HPC does very well where complaints from employers are concerned. The majority of complaints received by HPC come from employers, and the HPC finds over 80% of these complaints have a case to answer. It also consistently processes a far greater proportion of the allegations made by employers.

So, far from protecting the public, the HPC upholds the interests of employers of the practitioners it registers, whilst being funded by registrants rather than their employers. The HPC processes fewer complaints from the public than current organisations do, does it more expensively, and dismisses the majority of those it receives.

These conclusions are based on figures, outlined below, all of which are drawn from the following reports:

HPC Fitness to Practise Report, 2006/07
HPC Fitness to Practise Report, 2007/08
HPC (Draft) Fitness to Practise Report, 2008/09

HPC Annual Accounts, 2007
HPC Annual Accounts, 2008
HPC (draft) Annual Accounts, 2009

In 2007/08 the proportion of allegations from the public was only a quarter of all those
made:

	The Maresfield Report

	Appendix 2: The Handling of Complaints

	The proposed regulation by the HPC is based on the premise that it will better protect the public than the current system of regulation which is carried out by organisations such as the UKCP and BACP, currently the major regulators for the psychotherapies. However, the HPC’s own figures show that it deals with relatively few complaints from the public and costs an extraordinary amount of money in the process. In 2008/09 it spent £4.66m, 36% of its total budget, on complaints yet this only included 78 allegations from the public. 58 of these were dismissed and only 17 complaints were found to have a case to answer. £4.66m for 17 complaints works out at £274,000 per complaint with a case to answer. This does not compare favourably with the existing system for dealing with complaints from the public in the field of the psychotherapies. As well as proving poor value for money, over the last three years the HPC has consistently processed about 30% less complaints than the allegations it has received. Also, the allegations made by members of the public are processed less quickly than allegations from any other category of complainant. A backlog will be building up due to the unwieldy nature of the system and its failure to respond appropriately. By comparison, the HPC does very well where complaints from employers are concerned. The majority of complaints received by HPC come from employers, and the HPC finds over 80% of these complaints have a case to answer. It also consistently processes a far greater proportion of the allegations made by employers. So, far from protecting the public, the HPC upholds the interests of employers of the practitioners it registers, whilst being funded by registrants rather than their employers. The HPC processes fewer complaints from the public than current organisations do, does it more expensively, and dismisses the majority of those it receives. These conclusions are based on figures, outlined below, all of which are drawn from the following reports: HPC Fitness to Practise Report, 2006/07 HPC Fitness to Practise Report, 2007/08 HPC (Draft) Fitness to Practise Report, 2008/09 HPC Annual Accounts, 2007 HPC Annual Accounts, 2008 HPC (draft) Annual Accounts, 2009 In 2007/08 the proportion of allegations from the public was only a quarter of all those made: