Pharmacist suspended for 12 months after ‘deceptive’ council housing claim

not fare they should just let her pay the money back instead of suspending her for 12 months.i think she is matured enough to undersatnd whats wrong.12 months suspension is too much.

If she lived within the borough that she owned the properties then that would be an issue, but if she did not own a property in the borough then there would not have been a problem. I can't see how this action should affect her ability to practice as nobody got poisoned due to her lack o competency, not drunk on the job or selling crack.

I can see the logic here. Council Housing against preparation of medication, Makes perfect sense...wait...

Just because someone might be good at their day-job does not excuse their criminal activities!

I'm quite sure Ms Muffazil knew exactly what she was getting in to. I'm sure she only became contrite and remorseful when she realised she could not lie her way out of her predicament - a bit like all criminals trying to look for mercy when they change their plea at the last minute.

As for the regulator saying she had not caused any harm to patients, she kept another family from accessing a council house. Harmful enough in my book.

I'm not privy to the full facts of this case but having just read lloydspharmacy have only had a rap on the knuckles for false advertising which is surely more detrimental to the patients and pharmacy's standing in the public perception, I think it shows the world we live in.

WATCH OUT YOU ALL PHARMACISTS IF YOU GET A PARKING TICKET YOU MIGHT BE SUSPENDED FOR A YEAR .............THE OFFENCE MAY BE IRRELEVANT TO PHARMACY PRACTICE BUT NOT ACCORDING TO GPHC.

The GPhC is becoming a bit of joke! This is a sign the GPhC has nothing better to do. The GPhC should investigate her as pharmacist and that would also apply to the premises where she has worked. If no issues arose relating to pharmacy, then at most the GPhC should have warned her. Let this be a lesson for the GPhC- not to waste your time and our money. This should have been a civil case with the council.

I have to agree. As time goes on the GPhCs decisions are becoming more in line with the former regulator, They Who Must Not Be Named...cough...RPSGB...cough. Particularly in the fact that they are disproportionate and are starting to seem almost spiteful at times. When they allow pharmacists off the hook for getting caught with illegal drugs, and then strike another person off for something like this it leaves me bemused.

Exactly the same feeling the RPSGB used to leave me with.

I don't speak German but I can if you like...

i can agree with the Gphc on some level, i know i wouldn’t want one of my pharmacists to be involved in criminal proceedings, however the punishment by the gphc is grossly disproportionate to the crime she is being investigated for. it hasn't effected her ability to be a pharmacist, but would you employ a new pharmacist with a criminal record? so in my view shes got off quite light with a suspension. Even if it is a bit lengthy!