Rebecca Delaney
Introduction
Rebecca Delaney is a former podiatrist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). In March 2026 an HCPC panel struck her off the register after finding a years-long pattern in which she held a second podiatry job in secret, worked it while on paid sick leave from her primary employer, and lied in declarations, a flexible-working request and a return-to-work interview to keep the arrangement hidden .
Background Information
Delaney worked as a podiatrist for an NHS employer referred to in the determination as Employer A, while — the regulator found — simultaneously holding a second position with Employer B. NHS employment rules require staff to declare outside work, both because of conflict-of-interest risks and because paid work performed during sickness absence is a form of fraud against the employer. Her case eventually covered conduct from March 2017 to late 2020, and became one of the more detailed dishonesty cases in the podiatry register: nine particulars, most of them alleging dishonesty element by element .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Struck off. The panel found the particulars proved, found her fitness to practise impaired, and imposed a striking-off order on 26 March 2026.
The foundation was laid in March 2017, when she began secondary employment with Employer B without notifying Employer A — a particular the panel found proved. Between 2018 and 2021, on dates listed in a schedule to the allegation, she undertook work for Employer B while on a period of sick leave from Employer A; the panel found she was dishonest in doing so, knowing she was receiving payment from Employer A during the sickness absence. The HCPC had also alleged she worked while unfit to do so, but amended the particulars before findings to remove that wording, accepting it could not be proved — an amendment the panel allowed as a matter of fairness .
The paper trail then became the case. On 15 February 2019 she submitted a “Nil declaration” to Employer A stating she had no interests to declare, which the panel found dishonest because she was already working for Employer B. On 23 November 2020 she declared she was conducting “ad hoc sessions” of clinical private practice — a description the panel found did not reflect the regular outside employment she was actually undertaking, again dishonestly. On 10 June 2019 she asked Employer A to cut her week from five days to four “due to your health,” which the panel found untrue; it found she knew the real purpose was to increase her working hours with Employer B. And on 25 November 2020, in a return-to-work discussion after sickness absence, she answered “no” when asked whether she had had any other form of employment during her absence — found dishonest .
Public Reaction and Consequences
By the time of the final hearing she had stopped engaging: her trade union representatives came off record in February 2026, relaying that she did not intend to engage with proceedings. The panel, satisfied she had been properly served, proceeded in absence, found her fitness to practise impaired, and concluded that a striking-off order was “necessary and proportionate” — pointing in terms to the risk of financial harm she posed and the public interest in confidence in the profession. The order took effect on 26 March 2026 .
Current Status
Delaney was removed from the HCPC register with effect from 26 March 2026. Unless reversed on appeal, the order ends her ability to practise podiatry in the United Kingdom. Her case appears in public erasure listings, and the determination remains the published record of the found dishonesty .
Impact on Their Career/Life
The arithmetic of the case is what makes it stark: a salaried NHS podiatrist drawing sick pay from one employer while privately drawing pay from another, sustained across roughly three years and defended with a false nil-return, a misleading declaration, a manufactured health need and a false interview answer. When the HCPC came asking, she stopped engaging altogether — the union’s off-record letter was the last the regulator heard. The panel’s sanction reasoning treated the dishonesty as creating a standing risk of financial harm, which placed the case at the top of the range. For NHS employers, it is another demonstration that sickness-absence fraud surfaces years later, in a public register, with a career-ending sanction attached .