Javeria Khan
Introduction
Javeria Khan is a physiotherapist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). In February 2026 an HCPC panel struck her off the register after finding, in their entirety, allegations that she had supplied registration-application material to would-be registrants and accepted payment for it — a commercial arrangement around the very documents meant to prove an applicant’s own competence .
Background Information
Overseas-qualified physiotherapists join the HCPC register through an application process that asks each candidate to submit their own information, including forms and further-information documentation completed with reference to their own education and practice. Khan was herself a registered physiotherapist, and the regulator’s case was that she had turned that insider knowledge into a service: providing material for use in other people’s applications, in exchange for payment, across six named applicants listed in the schedule to the allegation. She contested the case to a hearing, attending remotely from her home in Pakistan .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Struck off. The panel found all five particulars proved, the statutory ground of misconduct established, and directed a striking-off order on 20 February 2026.
The allegation had a tight structure. First, that she provided material to one or more of the scheduled individuals for use in their “Further Information Form” as part of their applications to register with the HCPC. Second, that she accepted payment from one or more of them for providing that material. Third and fourth, that both acts were dishonest — she knew, the regulator alleged, that registrants are not permitted to supply application material to applicants, and not permitted to take payment for it. Fifth, that her conduct in accepting payment was financially motivated. The panel found particulars 1 through 5 proved in their entirety, found the statutory ground of misconduct made out, and determined that her fitness to practise was impaired .
The hearing itself was a substantial contest: the panel worked through a final hearing bundle of 633 pages and a final case summary of 141 pages, alongside the registrant’s own written documents, over three days from 18 to 20 February 2026. In sanction, the panel identified aggravating factors — limited insight, particularly into the seriousness of the dishonesty and its implications for public protection and confidence, and repetition of the dishonesty across multiple applicants, with financial gain at its centre. Mitigation included the absence of previous regulatory findings, and Khan provided a reflective statement in which she wrote of gaining “insights into blind spots or areas for improvement that I may not have recognised on my own.” The panel accepted she had some insight but found it fell “far short of what was necessary,” and concluded her misconduct was attitudinal, driven by placing her financial needs before the interests of patients .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel directed the Registrar to strike Khan’s name from the register. Because the dishonesty struck at the integrity of the registration process itself — the mechanism that decides who may hold himself out as a physiotherapist — the case sits among the regulator’s most serious categories, and the striking-off order was imposed immediately rather than held over a period of conditions or suspension. Her erasure is now recorded in public listings of HCPC decisions .
Current Status
Khan was struck off with effect from the February 2026 decision and, unless she appeals successfully, can no longer practise as a physiotherapist in the United Kingdom. The determination, including the proved particulars and the sanction reasoning, remains published; the scheduled applicants’ identities are anonymised in the public record as Applicants 1 through 6 with initials .
Impact on Their Career/Life
Registration cases about application fraud are rare, and this one maps the whole supply chain: a registered professional, a price, and six applicants whose files were built with her material. The panel’s reasoning drew the line clearly — the register depends on each applicant’s submission being their own, and a registrant who monetises that process attacks the register itself, not merely an employer. The insight finding did the most damage: three days of evidence and a reflective statement later, the panel concluded she still did not grasp why paid application assistance is a public-protection problem, which made the dishonesty, in its word, attitudinal and effectively unremediable .