Dr Evangelia Bonda
Introduction
Dr Evangelia Bonda is a practitioner psychologist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number PYL32626. On 17 February 2026, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) — the Conduct and Competence Committee, concluding a substantive hearing that had opened on 9 February — directed that she be struck off the register, her fitness to practise found impaired after the panel proved she had disclosed a service user’s confidential information to outside persons and organisations.
Background Information
The published record identifies Bonda as a practitioner psychologist holding HCPC registration PYL32626. It does not name her employer or service, describe her training, or say how long she had been registered, and this page does not guess at any of that. MedicWatch — an independent record service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators and does not editorialise their findings — carries her case with erasure as the most recent outcome, added to its index on 5 May 2026, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for current registration details.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Regulatory findings, not a criminal case. The findings below come from an HCPTS panel applying the civil standard — the balance of probabilities. They are regulator findings, not criminal convictions, and no criminal proceedings form part of this case.
Particular 1 of the allegation covered a two-week window in the autumn of 2023: between 16 September and 6 October 2023, Bonda was found to have disclosed confidential information about Service User A to Person B and/or Organisation C and/or Organisation D — the disclosures concerning details of Service User A’s counselling sessions with Bonda and/or details of an alleged mental health diagnosis. The panel heard expert evidence on what the confidentiality duty requires. The expert took the panel to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, which require registrants to respect confidentiality, and to the HCPC’s Confidentiality guidance for registrants, which defines personal information to include details of a service user’s health, treatment or care that could identify them, and information a service user shares that is not strictly related to the care they receive.
The guidance permits disclosure only where the service user has given permission, the law allows it, it is in the service user’s best interests, or the public interest demands it — and consent, the guidance says, means the service user understands and does not object to the information being shared, the reason, the recipients, and how it will be used. Against that framework the panel measured the proved disclosures and found the confidentiality duty breached. The panel’s direction was removal from the register — striking off.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of the hearing and no public statements from Bonda or any other party; the persons and organisations that received the disclosures are anonymised in the public window. The concrete consequence is the striking-off direction of 17 February 2026. For a practitioner psychologist — a profession whose entire working material is other people’s most sensitive personal information — a finding of breached confidentiality is among the most career-terminal findings the regulator can reach, and the sanction reflected that.
Current Status
Bonda was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 17 February 2026. Her MedicWatch profile records erasure as her most recent published outcome, notes her registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for her current position.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Bonda’s registration to practise as a practitioner psychologist in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The case turns on a duty most patients never think to ask about but every therapeutic relationship depends on: that what is said in counselling stays there. The panel’s route through the HCPC’s confidentiality guidance — permission, law, best interests, public interest — shows how narrow the lawful paths for disclosure are, and how far outside them the proved conduct sat. The disclosure of details of an alleged mental-health diagnosis compounds the harm, because diagnostic labels carry stigma that the service user never chose to have shared. Beyond the determination, the published record contains no information about her circumstances since the decision.