7 Mar 2025
An RCVS disciplinary committee said the Sussex-based professional had made thousands from fraudulent claims that saw her given a suspended prison term.
Vet Times
Job Title
Image © Andy Dean / Adobe Stock
A West Sussex-based veterinary nurse has been struck off after she was given a suspended prison sentence for pet insurance fraud worth thousands of pounds.
An RCVS disciplinary panel said Gemma Louise Cole had engaged in “sustained and repeated” misconduct, which had also put colleagues at risk, over a period of more than four years.
Mrs Cole was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for a year, at Lewes Crown Court last August, having previously pleaded guilty to fraud before magistrates in Crawley.
A two-day disciplinary hearing went ahead in her absence in late February, following an investigation that only began following the completion of the court proceedings.
The committee was told that Mrs Cole had not responded to any communications about either the college’s inquiry or the disciplinary hearing, despite repeated attempts to contact her.
Newly published documents from the hearing show the committee found she had engaged in “pre-meditated” misconduct that had resulted in a financial gain of more than £13,000.
They continued: “It constituted clear breaches of trust, namely the trust reposed in her by her employer and by her fellow members of staff, whose integrity was put in jeopardy by her misuse of their computer entries.
“There was an abuse of her professional position within the practice. Her misconduct was sustained and repeated over a lengthy period of four and a half years. Her scheme revealed a degree of sophistication.”
The committee also observed that “members of the public suffer” as a result of higher premiums when frauds of the type that Mrs Cole committed occur.
Mrs Cole was deemed Mrs Cole unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse on the basis of her conviction. Transcripts from the sentencing hearing were presented in evidence.
But, while other sanctioning options were considered, the panel argued that “the gravity” of her actions, together with the need to maintain both standards and public confidence, meant it was necessary to remove her from the register.
