In a landmark judgement on 18 December 2014, the General Dental Council (GDC) was found to have acted unlawfully on setting professional fees.

The British Dental Association (BDA) initiated Judicial Review proceedings to prevent the regulator implementing a £15 million increase to the fees levied on the dental profession. The consultation behind the annual retention fee (ARF) rise has been deemed unlawful, but the judge declined to reverse the fee rise for dentists, their counsel citing the risk of ‘administrative chaos’ at the GDC.

The BDA reacts

Mick Armstrong, Chair of the BDA, said: ‘We regret that it came to this, but there was so much more at stake here than just fees. We've seen patients and practitioners left in limbo for over 18 months when complaints are raised, and hearings with an average price tag of £78,000. Health professionals should not have to subsidise failure at their regulator.

‘This super-sized fee rise still stands, and now serves as a monument to the failures of health regulation. This case has revealed that a regulator, unaccountable to government, can be found to have acted unlawfully but still walk away with its ill-gotten gains. We are now looking to the Government to act.’

The BDA has written to the Department of Health to outline the worrying implications of this case.

DCPs

Although the ARF has been increased for dentists, the fee for dental care professionals (DCPs) was reduced from £120 to £116.

The British Society of Dental Hygiene and Therapy (BSDHT) expressed its bitter disappointment at the outcome of the Judicial Review.

BSDHT President Michaela ONeill said: ‘Throughout the process we have fully supported our dentist colleagues. Although the proposed increase in the ARF is not significant for our members, it could potentially have a severe effect on the landscape of dentistry in the UK, a strained relationship between the profession and its regulator, and a decrease in practice investment in order to pay the increased fee. […]

‘We look forward to the GDC striving to be helpful by plugging any information gaps in future consultation documents so that its membership can retain confidence in its continuing role as our regulatory body.’