Information about ‘Rule 12’

What is ‘rule 12’? 

If you’ve already raised a concern about a doctor’s fitness to practise but you think we made a significant error in the decision or you have new information to provide, you can ask us to review our decision under our internal review process (‘rule 12’).

Rule 12 is not a way to appeal a decision if you disagree with it. 

What can we review? 

We can review the following decisions under rule 12 of our Fitness to Practise Rules.

• Where we have decided not to investigate the concerns you raised.
• Where we have taken no action at the end of an investigation.
• Where we closed an investigation by issuing advice, agreeing undertakings or issuing a warning to the doctor.

Find out about the actions we can take on a doctor's registration.

Please note, we cannot review decisions relating to individuals who are not doctors (e.g. physician associates (PAs), anaesthesia associates (AAs), or doctors no longer on our register). If the decision relates to a PA or AA, you can find out more about the investigation process or contact feedback@gmc-uk.org.  

When will we review a decision?

We can only review a decision under rule 12 if:

• the decision may be materially flawed,
• there’s new information which might have led to a different decision,
• the decision was taken less than two years ago (unless the circumstances are exceptional).

Even where one of these applies, we can only proceed if a review is necessary in the public interest. We can’t review a decision just because you disagree with it.

Material Flaw

A flaw is a mistake in the original decision. A material flaw is a mistake which – if corrected – could have led to a different decision. 

Examples of what could represent a material flaw:

• important evidence was overlooked
• the decision was based on a factual misunderstanding
• the decision maker incorrectly applied the law. 

Examples that would not usually be enough:

• you disagree with the decision
• you’re unhappy with the outcome
• you think the doctor should be held accountable 

New information

New information means information that was not available when the original decision was made. This could be, for example, medical records that weren’t available earlier or evidence that came to light during an inquest or criminal investigation. 

For us to consider it, new information cannot be:

• information we previously held but expressed in a different way 
• further arguments or explanations of your concerns 
• repeat information we’ve already considered 
• an AI generated analysis of the evidence

Two Year Timeframe 

Our rules state that we must decide whether to review an original decision within two years of it being made, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

It is not enough to submit a request before the two-year deadline. We must also have enough time to consider the request and make the review decision within that period. We therefore recommend sending any request to us as soon as possible. The threshold for considering a review outside the two-year period is high, so it is particularly important that requests are submitted promptly.

Who can ask for a review? 

Anyone with an interest in the decision can ask for a review, such as a patient, the person who made the complaint or the doctor's employer. 

Please note, this review process is only for concerns that the GMC has already been made aware of. If you want to raise a new concern about a registered doctor, you can report a new concern here.

You can read more about our process in our Rule 12 FAQs document.