Kayleigh Moffat
Introduction
Kayleigh Moffat — Kayleigh Mcapline Moffat in General Dental Council records — is a dental nurse (registration number 207957) who at the material times was also practice manager at her practice. On 21 May 2025 a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the GDC ordered her erased from the register with immediate suspension, having found she forged the signatures of three colleagues on practice policy documents and submitted them to the British Dental Association (BDA).
The hearing ran from 19 to 21 May 2025, with the determination dated 23 May 2025. Moffat was neither present nor represented; the Committee found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct.
Background Information
The determination records that Moffat was employed at the practice as its Practice Manager, that its policies were updated annually, and that one of her responsibilities was making sure the policies were in place and signed. She had no previous fitness to practise history, later noted as mitigating. Beyond that senior, trusted role, the determination does not describe her training or career, and this page does not speculate.
The Notice of Hearing, dated 27 March 2025, was sent by Special Delivery to her registered address — signed for in the name of “Moffat” — and emailed to her. She replied on 3 April and 2 May 2025 that she would not attend or be represented and intended to leave the register regardless of outcome, no longer wishing to practise. The Committee found she had voluntarily absented herself and that proceeding was fair and in the public interest.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. These are regulatory findings made on the balance of probabilities by a GDC Professional Conduct Committee — not criminal convictions, and no court has found her guilty of anything. The burden of proof lay with the GDC; dishonesty was assessed under the civil two-stage test in Ivey v Genting Casinos. The Committee proceeded in Moffat’s absence, unrepresented by choice.
On 26 September 2022 the practice owner, Person 3, asked Moffat to prepare documents the BDA’s “Good Practice Scheme” (GPS) required by 29 September 2022 to show the practice’s documentation was current — including the “Practice acceptance policy”, “Practice Safeguarding Policy” and “Practice Quality Assurance Policy”. Colleagues Person 1 and Person 2 were on annual leave on 23 September and all that week. The Committee found proved that, on a date on or around 26 September 2022, Moffat forged Person 1’s signature on the Acceptance for treatment Policy, the Safeguarding Policy and the Quality Assurance Policy; Person 2’s on the Acceptance for treatment Policy and Quality Assurance Policy; and Person 3’s on the Quality Assurance Policy — six forgeries in all, though Person 3 was not on holiday. The colleagues said the signatures were not theirs, some spelled incorrectly.
It unravelled within days. On 4 October 2022 Person 2, back from leave, saw a document signed in her name that was not her signature; Moffat told her it was for the BDA good practice scheme, a task Person 3 had given her last minute. Person 2 reported the forgery that day; Person 1 on 13 October. Person 3 investigated with an independent HR consultant; on 18 October he found his own signature forged on the Quality Assurance Policy — Moffat admitted it that day. On charge 2, submission to the BDA, there was no direct evidence, but the Committee inferred from her own accounts that she submitted the documents on or before 29 September 2022.
The Committee found the conduct misleading — it had the inherent capacity to make the BDA believe staff had read and signed the documents — and lacking in integrity, applying Wingate v SRA given her seniority and trust. On dishonesty, it was satisfied she knew the signatures were forged before submission, concluding ordinary decent people would call the conduct “clearly dishonest”. Her own statements said she knew the documents were not signed by all staff, that it was the “wrong thing to do”, and that she “panicked” because they were not up to date. Every charge was found proved; none was withdrawn.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The first consequences came from the practice itself: a disciplinary hearing on 25 October 2022, run by the independent HR consultant, ended in her dismissal on the grounds of Gross Misconduct, notified on 26 October. The practice owner told the GDC on 17 November 2022 and the BDA on 21 November 2022; the GDC referred the case to the PCC.
The Committee found she had breached the fundamental tenet of honesty and integrity (Standard 1.3), along with Standards 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 6.6 and 9.1 of the Standards for the Dental Team, and that fellow practitioners could properly regard her conduct as “deplorable”. Aggravating features were the six forgeries, the breach of trust by a senior member of the dental team, and admissions that came only once she had been found out — Person 2’s on 4 October, the others when later asked. Her 2 May 2025 email was found to show a lack of insight and attempts to deflect blame onto colleagues. In mitigation were her clean record and her acknowledgement that she made a mistake. The Committee found no patient harm — the damage was reputational — so impairment rested on public confidence and proper standards, not public protection. Only erasure, it concluded, met the public interest.
Current Status
Moffat is erased from the GDC register — struck off. The order was made on 21 May 2025, with an immediate suspension covering the 28-day appeal period; the Committee understood she was not then working as a dental professional. If no appeal is made, the erasure replaces the suspension after 28 days from deemed service; any appeal keeps it in force until it concludes. Erasure is a regulatory sanction; the determination records no criminal conviction.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The forgery cost her the job in October 2022, and the erasure removes her from the register of dental professionals legally able to practise in the UK. The Committee considered her dishonesty attitudinal and hard to remediate: she accepted she made a mistake and said she had moved forward with honesty and integrity, but also described a “difficult” working environment and problems “much larger” than herself, contentions the Committee said were unsupported by evidence. Unless she successfully appeals, the direction is final.