-
-
-
-
-
- Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons
- Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses
- Contact the Advice Team
- XL Bully dog ban
- 'Under care' - new guidance
- Advice on Schedule 3
- Controlled Drugs Guidance – A to Z
- Dealing with Difficult Situations webinar recordings
- FAQs – Common medicines pitfalls
- FAQs – Routine veterinary practice and clinical veterinary research
- FAQs – Advertising of practice names
- GDPR – RCVS information and Q&As
How to request a review of a decision
We recognise that you may be disappointed with some aspect of our process or with some of our decision(s). The review process is not an opportunity to repeat your original complaint or response. Your concerns or response have been considered by the Stage 1 Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) or the Stage 2 PIC and a decision has been reached.
This review is conducted by the Head of the Professional Conduct Department and the Chair of the PIC.
The Review process is only available in limited circumstances and serves to identify those very rare occasions when a significant procedural error has occurred and that the error has led to an unreasonable decision being made.
or
That since the decision, you have become aware of some new and significant material or information which was:
- Not reasonably available to you prior to the decision being made and
- which would have been a significant element to the decision and which may have resulted in a different decision being made.
Significant Error
You will be asked to explain which parts of the Stage 1 or Stage 2 PIC procedure you say would be considered unreasonable.
Please note an unreasonable procedure is one that no other reasonable Stage 1 or Stage 2 PIC would have used given the same information.
You will also be asked to explain the way in which you say that the error was significant to the decision that was made.
Please note the fact that an error was made does not automatically mean that the ultimate decision was unreasonably wrong. You will need to explain how the error resulted in an unreasonable decision. Identifying another outcome that is more preferable to you, is not sufficient to require a review.
New Information
You will be asked to,
- explain what the new information is
- explain how the new information would have had a significant impact on the PIC's decision – Please note that simply saying that it would have changed the decision is not sufficient
- confirm the date that this information was first known to you
- explain why you did not disclose the information to our investigation
Should you wish to proceed to request a review, please fill in the form below. If you are unable to access this form, please would you contact [email protected] to request a hard copy version.