A pharmacist has been suspended from the professional register for a year for lying to the local authority "time and time again" to secure housing benefit for his family.

Lakwinder Singh Gupta, registration number 2045915, repeatedly insisted he was not related to his tenants so they could claim housing benefit, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) heard at a fitness-to-practise hearing on January 23.

The GPhC accepted that Mr Gupta had been partly motivated by a desire to protect his family, but said he had failed to accept full responsibility for his "thoroughly stupid" lies.

Lakwinder Singh Gupta, registration number 2045915, repeatedly and dishonestly insisted he was not related to his tenants so they could claim housing benefit	More fitness-to-practise cases Locum suspended for plagiarising colleague's coursework Boots manager struck off for stealing perfume testers Pharmacy owner suspended for £2,000 fraud
	Mr Gupta bought a house in East Renfrewshire, Scotland, in 2001 and lived there with his wife and children. A year later, his father, mother, brother and sister-in-law came to live with him in the property. Shortly afterwards he moved elsewhere, but remained the landlord of the house.

His family made an application for housing benefit, which required them to state whether they were related to the landlord. Mr Gupta agreed to say that he was not a relative.

The council became suspicious and, in 2009, interviewed Mr Gupta about his relationship with the tenants. He "repeatedly denied" he was related to them and signed a statement to that effect.

The council subsequently discovered that the tenants were Mr Gupta's family and he admitted to lying. His father was prosecuted for benefit fraud and ordered to pay £24,000.

The GPhC noted that Mr Gupta was a man of good character who had no previous fitness-to-practise issues. It also accepted his "very real" remorse that his elderly father had been prosecuted and claim that he would have rather been prosecuted in his place. Mr Gupta was working to pay back the £24,000 on his father's behalf, the GPhC heard.

But the GPhC doubted whether Mr Gupta's "sole motivation" was to protect his family, and stressed that he had also benefited from the fraud. Although it accepted he was under family pressure to lie, the GPhC noted that he had "ample opportunity" to tell the truth before he did.

It added that Mr Gupta's remorse was for the consequences for him and his family, rather than a "deep reflection or insight" into his misconduct.

The GPhC said that, although dishonestly was a "very serious matter", it should not automatically lead to being struck off the register and found it would be "disproportionate" in this case. It ruled to suspend Mr Gupta for 12 months with a review at the end of the period, when he would have to persuade the committee he was fit to practise.

Full details of the case are available here.

What do you make of the GPhC's ruling? Comment below or email us at [email protected] You can also find C+D on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook