Pharmacist Suspended for Forging Gas Safety Certificate in Private Property Sale

Date of Decision: January 16, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Convicted of forgery after creating a false gas safety certificate during the sale of a private business property.
Forged the signature of a gas engineer and submitted the document as part of a property sale.
The forged certificate was later discovered to be invalid, and the boilers were deemed unsafe.
The engineer whose name was used was wrongly implicated and suspended from work.

Outcome: 8-month suspension from the GPhC register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1.2 – Take action to protect the well-being of patients and the public
Standard 6.1 – Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust
Standard 6.5 – Meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct

Case Summary

The registrant, while selling a business property (a pub), was required to provide a valid gas safety certificate. Instead of obtaining one:

She created a fraudulent certificate, using the name of a gas engineer who had previously worked at her home.
She forged his signature, knowing he had not inspected the boilers.
After the sale, the boilers were found to be unsafe, and it became clear the certificate was false.

The engineer named was wrongly suspected and suspended from work before being cleared.

“The registrant admitted producing a fraudulent document, namely the gas safety record.”

The registrant pleaded guilty in court and was convicted and sentenced.

GPhC Findings on Impairment

The Committee found that:

The registrant’s conduct was dishonest, placed members of the public at risk, and harmed an innocent engineer’s career.
Although not clinically related, her actions brought the profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of honesty and trust.
The conviction alone was sufficient to demonstrate impairment on public interest grounds.

“She had been convicted of a serious matter of dishonesty which had put the public at risk and caused significant distress.”

However, the Committee also noted:

The registrant did not know the boilers were unsafe and had continued living in the premises with her child.
She demonstrated insight and remorse, expressed genuine reflection, and complied fully with her court orders.

Sanction

After considering all sanctions:

The Committee determined that an 8-month suspension would sufficiently protect public confidence and uphold standards.
The registrant’s remorse, insight, and testimonials persuaded the panel that removal was not necessary.
The suspension would not require a review, and she would be free to return to practice after the period expired.

“This misconduct was an aberration in an otherwise blameless life.”
“A shorter period would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Personal dishonesty, even outside a clinical setting, can seriously damage professional reputation.
Integrity is a core standard—breaches, even one-off, will be treated seriously.
GPhC may sanction registrants for non-clinical criminal convictions if they undermine public trust.
Insight and remediation can make the difference between suspension and erasure.
The public interest can justify regulatory action even when no ongoing risk to patients exists.

Conclusion

This case shows how dishonesty unrelated to clinical practice can still result in a significant regulatory sanction. The GPhC held that public confidence in the pharmacy profession required action, and an 8-month suspension was a proportionate response. While the registrant demonstrated insight and had no previous history of misconduct, the seriousness of the offence and its impact on others warranted regulatory intervention.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.