LATEST ISSUES 11th September, 2026
Updated: 5 days ago
This is the third of three parts of my letter to William Rodway, Investigation Team
Manager - Investigations, Fitness to Practise at the Health and Care Professions Council sent on the 7th September, 2026.
( Updated 12th September, 2026 )
'REMEDIATION
You then stated
‘The ICP accepted that any misconduct finding would be limited by wider service and organisational failings, recognised the registrant’s significant insight and remediation,…’
QUESTIONS What ‘remediation’, exactly, William? What remedy did Sally Mungall offer or demonstrate? How did Sally Mungall remedy the psychological and reputational damage done to me? How exactly did Sally Mungall improve, correct or redress damage or injustice caused to ME? Sally Mungall has NEVER shown ME contrition or offered apology. It was I who initiated this ‘fitness to practice’ complaint against Sally Mungall. It is me who is psychologically damaged by Sally Mungall. Acceptance by the HCPC of remediation offered by Sally Mungall should be contingent on improvement, correction or redress for ME. That would be the hermetic seal on a declaration of mea culpa. The redemption is invisible to me.
QUESTIONS Did Sally Mungall build a reflective statement that demonstrated genuine insight and did she complete structured, certified training in the specific area of concern — ethics, probity, professionalism, or professional boundaries — before the HCPC asked her to? Did Sally Mungall put anything in writing and or is there a transcript of engagements with Sally Mungall by the HCPC that can forwarded to me?
Where are the HCPC’s codified rules or guidelines around ‘insight’ and ‘remediation’?
In the absence of readily available, published rules and guidelines I have resorted to the General Medical Council, the healthcare regulator for medical profession in the UK, and information provided by Fitness to Practise Defence Barristers, Kings View Chambers https://www.kingsviewchambers.com.
‘Evidence that the doctor understands the problem and has insight, and of their attempts to address or remediate it. This could include the doctor admitting facts relating to the case, apologising to the patient, making efforts to prevent behaviour recurring, or correcting deficiencies in performance or knowledge of English.’
Where is Sally Mungall’s apology to me?
I would go further and suggest that my concerns are IRREMEDIABLE.
‘Irremediable concerns'
Certain fitness to practise concerns are deemed so serious that, according to the GMC, they are irremediable.
The GMC guidance states that irremediable concerns are “serious or persistent” actions “that, despite steps subsequently taken, action is needed to maintain public confidence. This might include where a doctor knew, or ought to have known, they were causing harm to patients, and should have taken steps earlier to prevent this.” ‘
Sally Mungall knew, or ought to have known, that she was causing harm to me. She actually knew she was likely abusing me as she brought it up during ‘art therapy’ following her own ‘supervision’ and recorded it in her ‘Progress Notes’.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
The HCPC advises ‘individuals who wish to challenge a decision may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding the option of applying for a Judicial Review’. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website states
‘…judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.
It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.
This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.
If you want to argue that a decision was incorrect, judicial review may not be best for you. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court. - https://www.judiciary.uk/how-the-law-works/judicial-review/
I have already been advised by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman to seek a judicial review after their appalling failure to uphold the FULL SCOPE of my complaints about CAMHS and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Judicial reviews are notoriously expensive and well beyond my financial resources. Legal Aid providers are usually running at capacity and are reluctant to take on judicial review cases because of the prohibitive costs.
I CANNOT AFFORD JUSTICE.
THE SYSTEMIC FAILURES OF THE HEALTH AND CARE PROFESSIONS COUNCIL
Regardless, I understand that my only recourse is through the courts. Since a judicial review will only challenge the way in which the ICP made the decision and NOT the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached then I can only legally appeal through a higher court.
I note, with sadness, that the HCPC is failing many other service users. The reviews published at https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/hcpc-uk.org and https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Health-and-Care-Professions-Council-Reviews-E1962283.htm are damning testimonies. Even the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care found the HCPC wanting.
‘Fitness to Practise
The HCPC has met three out of five Fitness to Practise (FTP) Standards this year.
We audited a sample of closed HCPC cases to evaluate timeliness, investigation quality, decision-making, risk management and support for parties. Our findings were mixed.
The HCPC did not meet Standard 15 again this year, because it is still taking too long to process FTP cases and its open caseload has increased. During our audit of the HCPC’s FTP process, we identified avoidable and/or unexplained significant delays in approximately 40% of cases…’
MY INTENTIONS GOING FOWARD
If the HCPC cannot be trusted to take robust action against professionals on its register who do not meet even its own ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’ then there can be no guarantee that it can protect the public.
It falls to me to take this matter further. I have already established that qualified and competent legal assistance is outside my financial resources and Legal Aid lawyers are all running at capacity. Which leaves me to advocate for change, raising these serious issues with the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Chair of The Health and Social Care Select Committee, my own MP, the national press and the alternative media.
Additionally, I have committed myself to working on a video documentary that will take up the slack left unattended by the HCPC. I will set out a scathing appraisal of mental health services, the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman, Hampshire Police and regulatory bodies including the Health and Care Professions Council. I intend to lay bare the clinical neglect, professional malpractice and outright corruption of named individuals and institutions, filming on location around Basingstoke and Central London, Hampshire Police Headquarters and the HCPC at Park House, Kennington Park Road. Everyone highlighted will be given the right to reply and an opportunity to be interviewed. This documentary will be published online through social media and be offered to all the major media networks. The documentary may also introduce a regular podcast focusing on mental health issues and art therapy in particular.
My own ongoing research confirms the absolute dereliction of competence and ethical clinical practice in NHS mental health services. Child and Mental Health Services throughout the country offer particularly bad service
Sally Mungall has caused irrevocable damage to my mental and reputational health.
The actions taken by her have serious, life-long consequences for me. The false accusations made by her to Hampshire Police have resulted in ‘occurrences’ of ‘making unwanted contact’, ‘harassment’ and ‘stalking’ being filed on police local databases under a ‘Category 2 Violent & Sexual Offences’ under my name at least until 2032, possibly until I am 100 years old!
This means that I will no longer be able to take up further lecturing and teaching employment opportunities because I will no longer pass an enhanced DBS check. I have already tested the process to confirm this.
This means that I will no longer feel confident in forging new adult relationships and will now live out the rest of my natural life alone. I did attempt to form a new intimate relationship earlier this year but that relationship was called off abruptly after divulged this part of my history.
It was bad enough to have been the victim of clinical neglect.
It was made worse when your registrant lied to me and to others, allowed her clinical and leadership cohorts to believe that I was a ‘risk’ to others and a danger to my own daughter and to convince the police that I was a ‘stalker’.
And now, YOU, the HCPC, have denied me access to justice and closure, by cynically turning a blind eye to the FACTS and absolving your registrant of any wrong-doing.
I arrived at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke, a single dad and main carer to a mentally ill daughter, beleaguered and burned out. I was desperate for help. I trusted the institution and I trusted clinicians.
I trusted Sally Mungall.
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
And finally, you stated
‘Please note that this email is provided for the purposes of this regulatory process only and is not intended for public dissemination.’
Transparency and accountability should be considered essential principles in regulatory governance. Transparency is absolutely necessary to maintain public trust and confidence in your registrants. Visibility helps prevent corruption by reducing opportunities for hidden agendas and unethical behaviour.
If you are confident that the ICP have made the correct decision in this fitness to practice complaint then you should have nothing to hide.
Regardless, I have taken you exactly at your word and not copied your email in its entirety. I am publishing this response to my blog and copying to the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Chair of The Health and Social Care Select Committee, my own MP, the national press and the alternative media. I acknowledge that I have used quotes from your email for context and clarity. This may not be entirely within the spirit of your request.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Stock'
Comments