1. Skip to main content
  2. Skip to left side bar
  3. Skip to right side bar
  4. Skip to footer

RSS Subscribe to the Professional Conduct Department RSS Feed

Hearing Findings, Decision & Sanction


JULY 2015: Laura How, Reference No: 740381, Somerset BS26

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is as follows:

The Complainant attended counselling with Ms How for some weeks between October and December 2013. At the end of that time, Ms How emailed him to say that she did not have the experience to deal with his type of problems and recommended that he find another, preferably male, therapist.

The Complainant was hurt and saddened as he had liked Ms How and had believed that he was making progress. He had sought counselling following a rift with his son, which had made him realise that there were personal and family issues which would be helpful to address. He allegedly spoke to Ms How very honestly about his personal history, including his Catholic upbringing and his difficulties with [ . . . ]. He also allegedly discussed his worries, as a younger man, about [ . . . ].

Shortly after the ending of the sessions with Ms How, the Complainant was visited by a Community Protection Officer, and was informed that Ms How had reported concerns about him. The investigation lasted approximately three weeks, including interviewing family members, which was very distressing to all concerned. In the event, no action was taken against the Complainant although the file remains indefinitely on the police files.

The Complainant stated that he continues to suffer stress. He alleged that Ms How did not recognise the nature of his anxieties and that she applied her own personal fears and anxieties and came to a wrong conclusion. The Complainant alleged that Ms How gave false information to the police.

The Complainant felt betrayed and alleged that his confidentiality was violated by Ms How. He alleged that he was not made aware that Ms How would break confidentiality under any circumstances.

The Complainant contacted Ms How to try to arrange a face to face meeting but she was not willing to do this, though she was willing to talk on the phone.

In accepting this complaint, the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel was concerned with the following areas, and in particular these are:

1. Ms How allegedly failed to provide a good quality of care that met the Complainant's needs, in that after a number of weeks of counselling Ms How ended the therapeutic relationship with him, by email, saying that she did not have the experience to deal with his type of problem and recommended that he find another therapist. In doing so it is alleged that Ms How was not competent nor had she acted in the best interests of the Complainant.

2. Ms How allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience and failed to take advantage of the available professional support, in that she did not discuss her intention to end the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant with her Supervisor, or ask for support from her Supervisor before ending the relationship.

3. Ms How allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of herself as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client, in that she did not explain to the Complainant that she intended to discuss her concerns about him with the Police, at any time during the counselling relationship.

4. Ms How allegedly failed to keep accurate records of her work with the Complainant, in that she gave information to the Police which was inaccurate, specifically in relation to what the Complainant had told Ms How during therapy sessions about his father, and in so doing was not attentive to the quality of listening.

5. Ms How allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with competently delivered services, in that having had seven sessions with the Complainant, she failed to carry out any review with him before ending the therapeutic relationship with him.

6. Ms How allegedly failed to gain the trust of the Complainant, or honour that trust, in that she reported the Complainant to the Police, without prior discussion, and therefore failed to pay careful attention to client consent and confidentiality.

7. Ms How allegedly failed to gain the trust of the Complainant, and honour that trust in that she sent an email to the Complainant to end the therapeutic relationship, it is alleged that this was not an appropriate way of communicating and further it was discourteous.

8. Ms How allegedly failed to adequately inform the Complainant that alleged [ . . . ] may be reported, and therefore did not allow the Complainant the right to choose whether to continue or withdraw from the therapeutic relationship.

9. Ms How, allegedly further failed to obtain the Complainant's consent before reporting him to the Police, thus overriding client confidentiality without adequate and reasoned justification.

10. Ms How allegedly allowed her own personal prejudices to colour how she heard the Complainant in that she formed opinions about him from what he told her in therapeutic sessions, in particular about his catholic upbringing and his difficulties with his [ . . . ] and his worries as a younger man, about [ . . . ].

11. Ms How allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that the disclosure made to the Police was not undertaken in a way that best protected the Complainant's trust nor his autonomy, particularly as the Complainant only became aware of the report some weeks later when a Community Protection Officer visited his home, to speak with him.

12. Ms How allegedly failed to balance the Complainant's rights to confidentiality, by making a disclosure to the Police, against the need to communicate with others. It is alleged that Ms How failed to consider whether the disclosure was made with due consideration to exceptional circumstances which prevented the need to seek client consent.

13. Ms How allegedly failed to account to the Complainant in respect of her management of his confidential information in that when the Complainant suggested a meeting to discuss and try to understand what had transpired in respect of the disclosure made to the Police, she refused to meet with him. It is alleged that in refusing this meeting, she was not acting in an ethically responsible manner.

14. Ms How allegedly failed to remedy any harm that she may have caused the Complainant, nor did she discuss the circumstances in which she may have harmed the Complainant with her supervisor.

15. Ms How allegedly failed to consider utilising dispute resolution in the circumstances where Ms How may have considered that she acted in accordance with good practice but where the Complainant remained unsatisfied.

16. Ms How allegedly failed to clarify in advance, the terms on which the counselling was being offered in terms of possible disclosure of client confidences, to an external party.

17. Ms How's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 24, 42, 43, 45 and 59 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and the Ethical Principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence and Justice and further suggests a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Integrity, Respect, Competence, Humility, Courage and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. The Panel found, indeed it was not disputed, that Ms How had ended the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant by way of email sent to him on 9 December 2013. By this point the Complainant had had eight sessions with Ms How and had disclosed a range of serious issues and the ending of the relationship had taken him by surprise. The Panel considered that unilaterally ending the therapeutic relationship by email after so many sessions in which serious issues had arisen was not in the client's best interests. The Panel also considered that in light of her inexperience, it was incumbent on Ms How to have addressed how her client's needs might be better supported much earlier. In her oral evidence, Ms How explained that she had worked with vulnerable and challenging clients in social care settings for a number of years before qualifying as a counsellor in 2011 and the Complainant was one of her first clients after she began practising. At assessment with the client she thought she had the necessary skills to work with him, but she accepted that she soon "felt out of her depth" and "overwhelmed". In response to questions she accepted that she was operating beyond her level of expertise. In her written and oral evidence Ms How also explained that she felt increasingly uncomfortable and uneasy in the Complainant's company however, maintained that she had done her best in difficult circumstances. In the Panel's view, however, in ending the relationship as she did Ms How had served her own needs rather than met the client's needs. Accordingly the allegation that she was not competent and had not acted in the client's best interests is upheld.

2. In her oral evidence Ms How explained that she did not have a supervisor prior to starting up in practice in 2011 nor when she first started seeing clients, including the Complainant. She had her first supervision session on 4 December 2013. The Panel established that by this time the Complainant had had seven sessions with Ms How and by her own admission to the supervisor and subsequently to the Panel, Ms How was already out of her depth. The Panel found that Ms How had failed to put in place adequate support for herself before embarking on private practice and as result she had very limited professional support. The supervision notes dated 4 December 2013 listed a number of considerations concerning the Complainant but the Panel found that these amounted to merely considerations and the notes did not reflect any in-depth discussion about ending the therapeutic relationship appropriately. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

3. In her oral evidence Ms How explained that she had decided not to give clients a written contract and had chosen to explain key points orally. This was a decision she had since come to regret. In her written and oral evidence she maintained that she had explained at the outset to the Complainant about confidentiality and when it might be breached. Ms How listed the points she would explain at the contracting stage such as timing of sessions, fees, retention of notes, and the role of supervision. Specifically with regard to confidentiality she said that she would explain that the sessions were confidential but that there were some circumstances when it might be necessary for her to breach confidentiality such as if the client posed a risk to him or herself or posed a risk to others. The Panel accepted that on balance Ms How had orally outlined how her services would be delivered to the Complainant and in this way had outlined the rights of herself as practitioner and the responsibilities of the Complainant as client. The Panel had regard to the Complainant's assertion that she had not done so. The Panel at the same time as accepting Ms How's evidence on this point also considered it conceivable that the client hearing an unwritten list of information may not have registered everything which was said. To the extent that clarification was delivered by Ms How the allegation was not wholly upheld. However Ms How's written and oral evidence undisputedly showed that she had not discussed her intentions to notify the police with the client, in fact she had deliberately chosen not to do so. Therefore, the Panel found that Ms How had not explained to the client that she intended to discuss her concerns about him with the police at any time during the counselling relationship and upheld this part of the allegation.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

4. The Complainant had expressed concern that information given to the police by Ms How was inaccurate. The Panel acknowledged that a practitioner's notes were not expected to be verbatim but noted that some information given to the police by Ms How was not included in her notes or in her supervisor's notes. Furthermore, Ms How's written and oral submissions relating to the Complainant's family history, with regard to what was subsequently reflected back to the Complainant by the Police, appeared at odds with the Complainant's own understanding. The Panel found that such discrepancies and the fact that Ms How was unable to remember or demonstrate exactly what was said, showed poor record keeping and inattentiveness. Furthermore, having made such a report the practitioner should keep a record of what they had reported. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

5. During questioning, it emerged that the Complainant had eight sessions with Ms How, as opposed to seven as detailed in the allegation. However, Ms How confirmed in her oral evidence that she had not carried out a review with her client before ending the therapeutic relationship. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

6. The Panel was satisfied that Ms How had initially gained the trust of the Complainant because it was clear he had felt able to share difficult and intimate disclosures with her and he had wanted the therapeutic relationship to continue. The Panel however, found that Ms How had failed to honour that trust in that she had reported the Complainant to the Police without discussing the matter with him and without notifying him in advance, thereby failing to pay careful attention to client consent and confidentiality. The Panel accepted that Ms How had thought about the situation and she had raised the Complainant at supervision but did not accept that she had paid sufficiently careful attention to what were fundamental issues in therapeutic relationships. Ms How's written and oral evidence was to the effect that she felt fearful of the Complainant, confused, inexperienced and inadequate. The Panel concluded that her actions in reporting the Complainant to the Police without notice to him and in unilaterally ending the therapeutic relationship were driven as much by her need to protect herself as by the need to protect others, especially children and that the client's needs were seen as the least important. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

7. The written and oral evidence showed that Ms How had ended the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant by way of email sent to him on 9 December 2013. She had chosen that means of communication because she did not want to see him in person again. In her oral evidence she explained that she did not mean to be discourteous but whatever her intention the Complainant had felt distressed. As recorded in finding 1, the Panel found that unilaterally ending the relationship at that point and doing so by email rather than in person was not in the client's best interests and the mode of communication was not appropriate. The Panel also found that Ms How's message was disingenuous and misleading by omission as it made no reference to her report to the police. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

8. The Panel found that on balance, at the contracting stage, Ms How would have orally gone through instances of when client confidentiality might be breached but that only going through this once at the beginning of the relationship was inadequate in the circumstances. The Panel found that the oral and written evidence indicated that there were sufficient grounds to expect that the confidentiality agreement needed to be re-visited on the basis that the disclosures were of a sexual nature. Consequently the Complainant was denied the opportunity to decide whether to continue with or withdraw from the therapy. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

9. Ms How confirmed in her written and oral evidence that she had deliberately chosen not to obtain the Complainant's consent before reporting him to the Police. In her evidence to the Panel she explained that she made the report because she could not be absolutely sure that he was not a current risk. She had not discussed it with him because she felt it would be unsafe for her to do so. There was no evidence that Ms How had referred to the BACP Ethical Framework which may have helped her. The Ethical Framework advises that client consent is the ethically preferred way of resolving any dilemmas over confidentiality. The weight of Ms How's evidence was that she had made the report without notifying the Complainant not because telling him would increase any risk but because she herself felt unsafe. Ms How found it difficult to articulate what prompted her genuine sense of unease. In all the circumstances, the Panel did not consider that Ms How had provided a reasoned justification for reporting the Complainant to the Police without his knowledge and as noted at 6 above the Complainant's needs had come last. The Panel acknowledged that Ms How had wrestled with a difficult decision but she had done so without reference to the Ethical Framework and with only limited reference to her supervisor. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

10. The allegation that Ms How was prejudiced in her dealings with a client from an Irish Catholic background with issues around his sexual orientation was firmly denied by her. Further the allegation was not particularised in any detail. The Panel found that the evidence did not support the allegation and accordingly it is not upheld.

11. Ms How had chosen to report her concerns about the Complainant to the Police without first making it clear to the client that certain issues could over-ride confidentiality, without notifying him in advance and without telling him after the event. The Complainant became aware of Ms How's actions only when a Community Protection Officer visited him at home. The Panel found that Ms How had not balanced the competing concerns of risk and the client's rights to privacy and confidentiality. Her choice to notify the Police of her concerns, whilst well meaning, was not carried out in a way which protected the Complainant's trust or respected his autonomy. Accordingly this complaint is upheld.

12. The Ethical Framework says that there may be exceptional circumstances such as the need for urgent action which prevent a practitioner seeking client consent before breaking confidentiality. In this case Ms How did not seek to claim any need for urgent action and no exceptional circumstances were identified by her or by the Panel. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

13. Ms How had refused to meet with the Complainant when he requested a meeting to try to understand what had transpired in respect of her disclosure to the Police. The Panel found that it was unethical of her to not accede to his request because, (i) she had ended the therapeutic relationship badly for the reasons noted above, (ii) the request had been made after the police had confirmed that the matter was closed with no need for action in respect of the Complainant, (iii) the Complainant had offered to meet with Ms How's supervisor in attendance so that she would not have to meet him alone, and to meet at a venue of her choice. Ms How had put her needs above her client's despite his offering steps to mitigate her concerns. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

14. In her oral evidence Ms How expressed that she understood the potentially adverse impact upon the Complainant of her report to the Police, citing humiliation, stress, effect on family members and being brought to the attention of the Police. She stated that she was sincerely sorry for the distress caused to the Complainant and his family members. She had taken no steps to remedy any harm caused other than offering a telephone conversation which the Complainant did not consider adequate. Nor was there any evidence that she had discussed possible harm to the Complainant with her supervisor. The supervision notes were silent on this point and in questioning, Ms How was unable to identify any ways of remedying any harm caused. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

15. Ms How stated in oral questioning that she had never heard of dispute resolution, and therefore it was never offered. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

16. As noted in finding 3, the Panel accepted that at the contracting stage Ms How had made general reference to confidentiality and some circumstances when it might be broken. Accordingly this allegation is not upheld.

17. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22, 24, 42, 43 and 45 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principles of Being trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence had been breached. It also found that Ms How's conduct in this particular case demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Integrity, Respect, Competence, Humility, Courage and Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire.

The Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 18 and 59 of the Ethical Framework nor the ethical principle of Justice had not been breached.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that the service for which Ms How was responsible fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. The Panel found that in this case Ms How was incompetent, reckless and had provided an inadequate professional service.

Mitigation

The Panel noted that Ms How had spoken openly, honestly and sincerely during the hearing. Prior to the hearing Ms How had identified areas for improvement in her practice. In her oral evidence she stated that she was sorry for the distress caused by her actions.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms How is required to provide a written submission which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, in not less than 6 months and no more than 18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms How is required to provide a written portfolio and diary showing CPD and reflective practice demonstrating her understanding of and application to practice of the following areas:

a) Ethical dilemmas - including but not necessarily limited to client confidentiality

b) Contracting and client consent

c) The role of supervision

d) Note-taking and recording

e) Setting up and establishing safe private practice.

Ms How is required to have the portfolio and diary signed off by her supervisor as having been discussed in supervision.

In deciding upon this sanction the Panel took into account that Ms How is not currently practising.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an
omission of text

back to top

JULY 15 Karen Grant Reference No: 534043 Brighton BN1

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the Complainant joined Karen Grant's College, KGA, in September 2011. She successfully completed levels two and three of the Counselling and Psychotherapy Central Awarding Body (CPCAB). In September 2012, she enrolled on Level Four (the first year of the Diploma Course). The course collapsed in July 2013, due to Ms Grant's health issues.

The course consisted of a weekend a month held at Ms Grant's house. Whilst Ms Grant was the course leader, there was a second tutor who taught on Sunday afternoons, plus associates who taught various different theories.

In January 2013, Ms Grant emailed her students to tell them that she was having financial difficulties. She explained that this was due to her having broken her foot the previous year, which led to a loss of financial resources and because of non-payment of student fees. The Complainant alleged that having discussed the matter with her fellow students, she realised that half of them had fully paid their fees and the remaining students were making monthly payments towards their fees. Ms Grant stated that because of these financial difficulties, she would no longer be able to employ other tutors. The Complainant stated that by March 2013, there were new tutors on the course.

The Complainant alleged that during the training weekend in February 2013, Ms Grant allegedly appeared agitated, complaining that the students were too demanding of her. In May 2013, Ms Grant disclosed to the group that she had been suicidal and was suffering from PTSD. At the June weekend, the Complainant alleged that Ms Grant wrongly praised a student for her counselling skills.

On the evening before the July weekend, the Complainant received a phone-call from a colleague, warning her that Ms Grant had been behaving erratically, in that she had allegedly thrown some students off a course and had been found on the floor in tears.

When the Complainant and some of her colleagues saw Ms Grant the next day, they realised that Ms Grant was ill, and suggested that she cancel the weekend course. The Complainant allegedly told her she needed support but Ms Grant responded that she was being supported by her supervisor and that was enough. Between them, the group members contacted [ . . . ] and a person whom they refer to as D. The Complainant stated that both D and [ . . . ] agreed that Ms Grant was not fit to practise and [ . . . ] allegedly talked about the unacceptable level of Ms Grant's drinking.

The Complainant alleged that on the course weekends, she witnessed Ms Grant sharing confidential information with a trainee who had also been her client in counselling, and that Ms Grant shared other confidential information inappropriately. As an example, Ms Grant allegedly recruited a student to help with marketing which caused a distance between this student and her peers. The same student was allegedly called on to support [ . . . ] and also witnessed the suicide attempt.

KGA went into liquidation, but arrangements were made for the students to transfer to another course, if they wished, for their second year. Ms Grant insisted that in order to pass their first year and thus be able to enter the second year with the different providers, the students would have to pay the full fee despite having missed the last two weekends of the course. Ms Grant also told the students in an email dated 27 August 2014, that their reaction to her disclosure that she was struggling had made things worse for her.

The Complainant has raised complaints with both Ms Grant and with CPCAB.

In accepting this complaint, the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel was concerned with the following areas, and in particular these are:

1. Ms Grant allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that Ms Grant disclosed details of her personal problems with the student group, of which the Complainant was a member.

2. Ms Grant allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services that met her needs, in that she recruited a member of the student group to do her marketing, which was to the Complainant's detriment.

3. Ms Grant allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that when the Complainant was left feeling frustrated and embarrassed following a group exercise, Ms Grant failed to recognise this, and therefore deal with it appropriately.

4. Ms Grant allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that one evening Ms Grant attended the course when she was unfit to do so, resulting in the Complainant and other students having to intervene to assist Ms Grant.

5. Ms Grant allegedly failed to respond constructively to feedback received from the Complainant and her fellow students, in that in response to the feedback given by the students, including the Complainant, Ms Grant stated that the feedback made things worse for her.

6. Ms Grant allegedly failed to be attentive to the quality of listening and respect offered to the Complainant, in that she failed to respond adequately to the Complainant's query regarding the overpayment she had made to Ms Grant in respect of her course fees.

7. Ms Grant allegedly failed to ensure that all training in counselling and psychotherapy modelled standards and practice consistent with that expected of practitioners, in that Ms Grant continued to practise when she was unfit to do so.

8. Ms Grant allegedly failed in her responsibility to protect the standards of the profession, in that she cancelled two weekends of training without putting any alternative arrangements in place for the students.

9. Ms Grant allegedly failed in her responsibility to protect the standards of the profession in that it was necessary for students, including the Complainant, to take action to assist Ms Grant when she attended the course whilst she was unfit to do so.

10. Ms Grant allegedly failed in her responsibility to protect the standards of the profession, in that Ms Grant demanded full fees from her students, including the Complainant, to mark their course work, when KGA had gone or was going into administration.

11. Ms Grant allegedly failed to ensure that she monitored and maintained her fitness to practise at a level which enabled her to provide an effective service, in that after she had allegedly attempted to commit suicide, Ms Grant did not withdraw from practice and cancel her teaching engagements until her fitness to practise returned.

12. Ms Grant allegedly failed to ensure that she maintained her fitness to practise at an appropriate level, in that she interpreted the feedback that had been given by the students to be demanding and in receiving such feedback, did not seek appropriate support.

13. Ms Grant allegedly failed to ensure that she had suitable arrangements in place for the Complainant and the students who were adversely affected by her failure to monitor and maintain her fitness to practise.

14. Ms Grant allegedly failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the Complainant's complaint regarding the overpayment of her fees.

15. Ms Grant allegedly failed to be honest and straightforward and accountable in all financial matters concerning the Complainant, in that Ms Grant requested full payment of the student fees when she had cancelled the last two weekends of the course.

16. Ms Grant allegedly failed to be honest, straightforward and accountable to the Complainant in relation to financial matters, in that she failed to notice that the Complainant had overpaid her student fees and issue a refund in respect of this overpayment.

17. Ms Grant allegedly failed to ensure that her work did not become detrimental to her health and well-being by ensuring that the way in which she undertook her work was as safe as possible and that she sought appropriate professional support, in that she continued to teach whilst she was unfit to do so.

18. Ms Grant's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 8, 11, 29, 30, 40, 41, 62 & 64 and the ethical principles of Being trustworthy, Non Maleficence and Beneficence & Self Respect of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2013 and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Resilience and Wisdom, Competence, Empathy, Sincerity, Respect & Humility to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Member Complained Against notified BACP that she would not be attending the scheduled hearing. The matter was therefore referred under paragraph 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure, which states:

Where a Complainant or Member Complained Against fails or refuses to attend a Professional Conduct Hearing, the Registrar has the power to decide to either:

a) Proceed with the Hearing in the absence of one or both of the parties; or

b) Adjourn the Hearing to a date not less than 28 days in advance; or

c) Terminate the proceedings; or

d) Refer the matter for consideration under Article 12.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The options were carefully considered, and in light of the circumstances, a decision was made to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Member Complained Against.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. The Panel found that Ms Grant had, orally and by email, disclosed details of personal problems to the student group of which the Complainant was a member over the period of the course and this amounted to failing to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs. The information shared related to Ms Grant's and her company's financial difficulties and related to Ms Grant's serious health problems including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In her written evidence, Ms Grant confirmed that she had disclosed some details of her personal problems and stated that this was in the spirit of openness and honesty. In an email to members of the student group, Ms Grant wrote that "I was completely honest with you that I was struggling". Whilst the Panel accepted that trainers draw on personal experiences, the Panel explored with the Complainant at some length if in fact the disclosures had been appropriate. The Complainant said that she had no sense at the time or subsequently that the sharing was designed to contribute to the learning experience. In her oral evidence the Complainant stated that she had variously been left shocked and worried by the information. The Panel considered that some emails from Ms Grant, by their tone and content, demonstrated that personal information Ms Grant had shared was not for the benefit of the Complainant and other students and the emails were inappropriate and unprofessional. For the reasons given above this allegation is upheld.

2. It was undisputed that a member of the student group to which the Complainant belonged (G) had been employed or remunerated by Ms Grant to assist with the
marketing of KGA courses, such as improving the website, and that this was common knowledge. The Complainant stated that this had been detrimental to her because the relationship between her and G had been adversely affected. The Panel did not accept that the evidence, written and oral, showed that the arrangements between Ms Grant and G caused a detriment to the Complainant or affected the climate of the learning experience. Accordingly this allegation is not upheld.

3. In oral evidence the Complainant confirmed that the exercise in question was a "goldfish bowl" exercise which took place in June 2013. In that exercise, the Complainant had played the role of the client and another group member (C) had role played the counsellor. The Panel considered in detail the group exercise as experienced by the Complainant. The Complainant clarified that she had not objected to Ms Grant's spontaneous interruption but did object to Ms Grant's analysis of the role play which she considered poor and inaccurate and left her feeling unheard. It could not be clearly established whether Ms Grant had acknowledged the Complainant's embarrassment and frustration. Firstly, at the point when the Complainant had, in her own words had to stop Ms Grant and "put her straight" rather bluntly, Ms Grant had only given feedback to the "counsellor" at that stage. Secondly, none of the written submissions from the other group members referred to the session and so did not corroborate the Complainant's version. Moreover, in oral evidence the Complainant stated that she could not remember what feedback (C) got from the others. Finally, the Complainant maintained that Ms Grant's written evidence in response apparently to this point related to a different incident. The Panel found that the evidence was inconclusive and accordingly this allegation is not upheld.

4. The Panel established through oral questioning of the Complainant that this allegation related to the early evening training session on Saturday, 9 February 2013, when the Complainant had alleged that Ms Grant was unfit to practise due to drink. The Panel explored in detail with the Complainant the final session of the evening in question. The Complainant reported that she and some other group members wished to finish early but that Ms Grant insisted on their completing the final exercise. The Complainant described Ms Grant as becoming aggressive towards her and another student. The Complainant accepted under questioning that she was at some distance from Ms Grant and neither saw nor smelt any physical symptoms which would support her suspicion of alcohol abuse. The Complainant said she had not recorded her concern in her journal because Ms Grant might see it. The Panel concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding and this allegation is not upheld.

5. This allegation related to feedback and had been raised having regard to paragraph 8 of the Ethical Framework. However, the Panel concluded that paragraph 8 did not apply to this scenario as it was restricted to "feedback from colleagues, appraisals and assessments". The Complainant was not a colleague, nor did the matters relate to appraisal or assessments. Accordingly the allegation is not upheld.

6. The Panel carefully considered the email trail in relation to an overpayment of fees by the Complainant. It noted a query about fees had been raised initially by KGA's bookkeeper on 11 March 2013 to which the Complainant responded the same day pointing out an overpayment of £200. The bookkeeper replied promptly the following day saying that she would look into it. No action appeared to have been taken and so the Complainant chased matters on 6 June and sent an email to Ms Grant on 12 June repeating the details, which Ms Grant then acknowledged on 17 June. The Complainant emailed again on 5 July, to which Ms Grant promptly replied stating she had not yet had chance to check the figures. The issue had also been raised in person at a tutorial with Ms Grant in May. The matter remained unresolved. The Panel noted that in her written submission Ms Grant stated that the overpayment had been "rectified in a short time" but the evidence did not support either that it had been rectified or that it had been dealt with in a short time. The Panel found that Ms Grant had taken a casual and unprofessional approach and had failed to deal adequately with the matter. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

7. The Complainant presented written and oral evidence that on a number of occasions in 2013, Ms Grant appeared to show signs that she was not well and her fitness to practise was impaired. Ms Grant denied that she had practised whilst unfit, however did not deny that she had heath issues. In addition to her own statements, the Complainant had submitted written statements from other members of the student group. Although those statements did not always specify dates or always identify clearly a particular training session, the Panel was satisfied that the weight of evidence served to corroborate that there were grounds for concern. Matters culminated on the morning of 13 July 2013, when Ms Grant was too ill to run the training weekend and had to be assisted by students who had attended. After that date the course in effect collapsed. The Panel was satisfied from the Complainant's oral evidence and from Ms Grant's reference to her training plan for the July weekend that Ms Grant intended to teach that weekend despite not being fit to do so. The Panel upheld the allegation that Ms Grant had failed to ensure that all training modelled standards and practice consistent with that expected of practitioners.

8. The Panel found that the final two weekends of the course had not been cancelled by Ms Grant. The Panel noted that the July weekend had not run due to her illness and the Complainant and others withdrew because of concerns about her fitness to practise and the August weekend had not run because of the company going into liquidation. The Panel therefore found that on a literal reading of the allegation it could not be upheld.

9. The Panel found that Ms Grant had failed in her responsibility to protect the standards of the profession because there was conclusive evidence that on the morning of 13 July 2013, it was necessary for her students, including the Complainant, to take action to assist Ms Grant when she was unfit to run the training course. This assistance included but was not confined to helping Ms Grant lie down, offering her nourishment, calling in a family member and an associate tutor. The evidence on this point included Ms Grant's email of the same date in which she apologised for the morning's events and referred to her ill health; an exchange of emails between Ms Grant and another student dated 14 July 2013, and the oral and written evidence of the Complainant in which she detailed the events and which were corroborated by statements from other students. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

10. The allegation relates to emails from Ms Grant dated 6 and 15 August 2013, in which the Complainant alleges that Ms Grant demanded full fees from the students, including the Complainant, to mark their course work when KGA had gone or was going into liquidation and as such Ms Grant failed to protect the standards of the profession. The Panel noted and the Complainant confirmed in her oral evidence that she had paid her fees in full and therefore the demand, if it could be construed as such, did not relate to the Complainant personally. She had received the emails because they had been sent to all the students because they addressed a number of administrative matters. The Panel therefore found this allegation is not upheld.

11. The Panel found that Ms Grant had failed to ensure that she maintained her fitness to practise at a level which enabled her to provide an effective service because she had attempted to commit suicide and did not withdraw from practice and cease teaching until she was fit to do so. The Panel was not able to fix with certainty the date of the attempt but was satisfied on the evidence that it was at some point during the course attended by the Complainant in 2013. The Panel paid careful regard to Ms Grant's written submission that she was "stunned by the allegation" and that she "could not understand how someone would suggest that I would try to commit suicide and teach at the same time", however in the Panel's view this did not amount to a clear denial. For her part the Complainant stated that she believed Ms Grant had attempted to commit suicide in February 2013, and Ms Grant disclosed this to the student group in May. The Panel considered the written evidence of four other students, three of whom said they had witnessed Ms Grant saying she had attempted suicide. The remaining student, referred to as (G) had written that she had been called to Ms Grant's home by a family member shortly after the attempt and had witnessed the aftermath. There was also evidence in relation to a psychiatric nurse attending at Ms Grant's home in February, although the reason for the visit was not stated. On balance, the Panel found that the evidence supported the allegation and therefore this allegation is upheld.

12. The Panel considered there were two aspects to this allegation in that Ms Grant had interpreted student feedback to be demanding and despite it being demanding did not seek appropriate support and therefore failed to ensure that she maintained her fitness to practise at an appropriate level. In her oral evidence, the Complainant accepted that Ms Grant had responded appropriately to her request for a sofa and had addressed her concerns about the state of the garden (which was used by the student group). The Panel, not being able to question Ms Grant, could not determine whether she had sought support in respect of student demands. The Panel did, however, note that Ms Grant had a supervisor in 2013, and was also seeing a counsellor as evidenced by supporting statements both had sent in. The Panel found that the evidence was not conclusive and this allegation is not upheld.

13. As recorded above, the Panel found that Ms Grant had failed to monitor and maintain her fitness to practise and for the reasons recorded here the Panel found that Ms Grant had failed to ensure she had suitable arrangements in place for the Complainant and other students to mitigate adverse effects. The Panel considered it not simply good practice but essential that a practitioner have contingency arrangements for all aspects of practice and administration in the event of illness, accidents, emergencies and absences. According to Ms Grant's written submission her only contingency was to be able to call upon another tutor (no name or details of the tutor were given). In the event, Ms Grant was unable to call upon that tutor because they had had a family bereavement (date unspecified). There was no evidence from Ms Grant of any risk assessment or practical plans. This was despite a number of troubling issues running in parallel to her practice including her physical and mental health issues, the strain of the death of a student during the course, and financial problems. In July 2013, Ms Grant was undisputedly unable to teach. She emailed at the time: "This has all got too personal and not professional enough and is effecting (sic) the teaching...". She had continued to the point where she had a breakdown and it was too late to make alternative arrangements for the July training weekend. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

14. Although the Panel found above (at 6) that Ms Grant had dealt inadequately with the issue of overpayment of fees, it found that the Complainant had not made a complaint as such about the fees, this was confirmed by the Complainant in oral evidence, and accordingly it could not be said that Ms Grant had failed to respond appropriately to a complaint. Therefore this allegation is not upheld.

15. The Panel found, firstly, that the Complainant had paid her fees in advance and so was not the subject of any demand for payment in July 2013, or subsequently and secondly, that Ms Grant had not in fact cancelled the final two weekends of the course (although the weekend training did not take place in July or August). This allegation is not upheld.

16. Although the Panel found above (at 6) that Ms Grant had dealt inadequately with the issue of overpayment of fees, the Panel did not consider her actions in this respect amounted to failure to be honest, straightforward and accountable to the Complainant. Therefore this allegation is not upheld.

17. The Panel noted that Ms Grant was counselling, training, running a business and employing staff all of which is demanding and imposes a responsibility on her for her clients, students, staff and associates. Ms Grant also had health issues. In emails there was reference to her acknowledging that she found it difficult to cope. The Panel noted that in her written submission Ms Grant said that she had measures such as yoga, CPCAB monitoring, a suggestion box for students and there was clear evidence by way of supporting statements that she had a clinical supervisor and a personal counsellor. Nevertheless the Panel found that Ms Grant had limited awareness of her impact on the Complainant and in addition her responses reflected a low level of accountability. This, together with the findings above, indicated to the Panel that Ms Grant had failed to reflect adequately on her situation and consider if her support system was effective. The Panel found that Ms Grant had failed to ensure that her work was not detrimental to her health and well-being. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

18. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 11, 29, 30, 40 and 64 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the Ethical Principles of Being Trustworthy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence and Self Respect had been breached. The Panel also found that Ms Grant demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of Resilience, Wisdom, Competence, Sincerity and Humility to which all counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 8, 41 and 62 of the Ethical Framework had not been breached. Nor did it find a lack of the personal moral
qualities of Integrity, Empathy or Respect.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice on the grounds of incompetence and the provision of inadequate professional services, in that the service for which Ms Grant was responsible fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Ms Grant had offered no mitigation in her written responses and had not attended to offer mitigation in person.

Sanction

The Panel was informed that Ms Grant's membership had been withdrawn under a separate disciplinary matter. Had Ms Grant's membership not been previously withdrawn, the Panel having considered the most appropriate sanction to be imposed, agreed that the following sanction would have been as follows:

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms Grant is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, in not less than 6 months and no more than 18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Grant is required to provide an in-depth case study which evidences the following:

1. Managing her professional responsibility to monitor and maintain her fitness, particular reference should be made to the circumstances relating to the issues arising in this complaint and,

2. Managing and running a counselling business effectively, including effective contingency planning.

3. Ms Grant should present evidence that the issues detailed in paragraphs 1 and 2 above have been discussed in supervision and the reports should be counter-signed by her supervisor.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text

back to top

July 2015: Monika Jephcott, Reference No: 514976, East Sussex TN22

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, was that the Complainant approached [ . . . ] University in February 2013, with a proposal for a Masters course in Play Therapy. The University was interested and following a successful period of planning and faculty review, set a date of 9 May for validation of the programme.

The Complainant provided evidence that in March 2014, Ms Jephcott sent a letter to the Vice Chancellor of [ . . . ] University raising concerns regarding the potential infringement of Intellectual Property Regulations (IPR) of the MA Practice Based Play Therapy (APAC) of which Ms Jephcott was the CEO. The Complainant alleged that within Ms Jephcott's communications with the University, Ms Jephcott lied about her and also made malicious insinuations about herself and her partner, stating that the Complainant was misusing the title 'Play Therapist' and the Accredited Voluntary Register (AVR) logo and claiming that the Complainant had been removed from the Play Therapy UK (PTUK) Accredited Voluntary Register in 2013. The Complainant denied that this was the case, stating that she was qualified and entitled to use the title Play Therapist. She also denied that she has used the stated PTUK logo, and has instead been using the BACP logo. The Complainant also provided evidence that she withdrew her membership of PTUK in May 2012, and prior to the PTUK AVR being available.

The Complainant alleged that Ms Jephcott was attempting to undermine BACP by stating that BACP has 'no competencies for working with children and are chartered to cover talking therapies', and by making these claims Ms Jephcott was attempting to place [ . . . ] University in a position where it was questioning the validity of the proposed course. The Complainant further provided evidence, dated 20 April 2014, that Ms Jephcott challenged the information on the Complainant's [ . . . ] website stating that it provided misleading information regarding the Complainant's play therapy qualifications, and accused the Complainant of putting the public at risk by her choice of professional body. The Complainant also provided evidence, dated 11 May 2014, that Ms Jephcott stated her concerns regarding the title of the proposed course at [ . . . ] University, and suggested a new title that Ms Jephcott believed would be less confusing to the public and employers.

The Complainant stated that the claims made by Ms Jephcott were malicious and intending to damage her reputation with [ . . . ] University and alleged that Ms Jephcott's 'lies and insinuations' have questioned both the good standing of the University and the Complainant.

The Panel noted that this complaint was being brought under paragraph 1.2b) of the Professional Conduct Procedure. The Panel took into account the introduction to working with colleagues as set out within the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2013 which states:

The increasing availability of counselling and psychotherapy means that most practitioners have other practitioners working in their locality, or may be working closely with colleagues within specialised or multidisciplinary teams. The quality of the interactions between practitioners can enhance or undermine the claim that counselling and psychotherapy enable clients to increase their insight and expertise in personal relationships. This is particularly true for practitioners who work in agencies or teams.

The Panel agreed that this complaint fell under the section of the Ethical Framework which related to working with colleagues.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Ms Jephcott allegedly failed to ensure that her professional relationship with the Complainant was conducted in the spirit of mutual respect, in that she wrote to the University that would be validating the Complainant's Play Therapy programme, asserting that the Complainant had been removed from the Play Therapy Register when the Complainant had herself withdrawn from the Register and intimated that the Complainant was not permitted to use the title Play Therapist.

2. Ms Jephcott allegedly failed to ensure that the Complainant was treated fairly, in that she wrote a letter, to the University that would be validating the Complainant's programme, asserting that the Complainant was not a Play Therapist and had been removed from the Play Therapy Register, when in fact she had not.

3. Ms Jephcott allegedly undermined the Complainant's relationship with the University by making unjustified claims, in that she stated that the Complainant had been removed from the Play Therapy Register and intimated that the Complainant was not entitled to use the title Play Therapy.

4. Ms Jephcott allegedly undermined the Complainant's relationship with the University, by making unsubstantiated and unjustified claims, in that she suggested to the University that BACP, "Have no competencies for working with children".

5. Ms Jephcott's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 51, 52, 54 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, and Justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Respect, Fairness, Humility and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. Ms Jephcott had failed to ensure that she conducted her professional relationship with the Complainant in the spirit of mutual respect in that her communications with the University which was to validate the Complainant's Play Therapy programme were misleading, inappropriate and to the Complainant's detriment. In addition Ms Jephcott did not seek to resolve matters with the Complainant before first contacting the University over her concerns.

On a preliminary point, the Complainant confirmed orally that which she had submitted in writing namely that she had no concerns about Ms Jephcott seeking to protect intellectual property rights (IPR) which the Complainant recognised Ms Jephcott was entitled to do.

The specific reasons for the finding are as follows:

Ms Jephcott first wrote to the University in question on 16 March 2014, writing directly to the Vice-Chancellor. The Panel established that before sending this letter Ms Jephcott had made no effort to raise her concerns with the Complainant, nor did she inform her of her intentions to contact the University nor did she copy in the Complainant when she wrote to the University.

The Panel noted that the letter of 16 March 2014 to the University was on the headed notepaper of The Academy of Play and Child Psychotherapy (APAC), of which Ms Jephcott is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and was signed by Ms Jephcott in that capacity. The letter raised concerns in relation to potential infringement of APAC's IPR but also went on to raise concerns about the Complainant's qualifications and professional standing, which in the Panel's view were issues not relevant to APAC. Those concerns arose from Ms Jephcott in her capacity as CEO of Play Therapy UK (PTUK) and as such should have been the subject of a separate letter under the PTUK umbrella. Ms Jephcott had conflated her two roles and failed to make her position clear to the University. It was noted that all Ms Jephcott's letters to the University were on APAC notepaper.

The letter of 16 March 2014 gave the impression that the Complainant was not qualified to be a Play Therapist when this is not the case. Ms Jephcott, in her written evidence, said that the Complainant "was trained by APAC as a play therapist" and went on to acknowledge that "the Complainant can use the title without being on a register overseen by the PSA".

More seriously, Ms Jephcott's letter stated that the Complainant had been removed from the PTUK register, which had negative implications in respect of the Complainant. It was misleading because the reference to "had been removed" implied wrongdoing or impropriety on the Complainant's part which was not the case. It was misleading on a second count because the Panel established that the register mentioned did not exist as at 20 May 2012, which was the time in question. The Panel accepted that PTUK would have had a list of its members at that time - described by Ms Jephcott as a "pilot register", but the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) Accredited Voluntary Register (AVR) was not accredited by the PSA until April 2013. The Complainant herself had chosen to resign from membership of PTUK on 20 May 2012 and it was simply a result of cancelling her membership that her name was taken off the list of members. For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld.

2. The Panel found that Ms Jephcott failed to treat the Complainant fairly in that she wrote to the University which was to validate the Complainant's Play Therapy programme, in terms which were misleading and inappropriate. For the reasons as set out in finding 1 above, this allegation is upheld.

3. The Panel found that Ms Jephcott had undermined the Complainant's relationship with the University by making unjustified claims in that she stated that the Complainant had been removed from the Play Therapy Register and intimated that she was not entitled to use the title Play Therapy. The reasons for this decision as are stated in 1 above and mirrored in 2 above. Ultimately the Complainant decided to withdraw from the validation process. For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld.

4. The Panel found that Ms Jephcott had undermined the Complainant's relationship with the University by making the claim that "BACP have no competencies for working with children" in her letter dated 16 March 2014 to the Vice-Chancellor. The Panel noted that this reflected Ms Jephcott's firmly held belief but considered this statement was inaccurate and subjective and it gave the erroneous impression that the Complainant's work in this area was unregulated. The Panel took the following points into account: the statement in the Complainant's opening summary that Play Therapy is a psychotherapy and as such could be covered by BACP; that as outlined orally by the Complainant, the ethical framework of PTUK does not differ in the essentials from that of BACP; the specific reference to children (in addition to young people) in paragraph 15 of the BACP Ethical Framework. This allegation is therefore upheld.

5. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that Ms Jephcott's conduct had breached paragraphs 51, 52 and 54 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013) and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy and Justice. The Panel also found that Ms Jephcott showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Respect, Fairness, Humility and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Panel did not find that the ethical principles of Autonomy or Beneficence had been breached.

Decision

The Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Misconduct in that Ms Jephcott had contravened the ethical and behavioural standards that should reasonably be expected of a member/registrant of this profession.

Mitigation

Ms Jephcott accepted in hindsight that she should have differentiated between her distinct roles as CEO of APAC and CEO of PTUK and written separately to the University.

Ms Jephcott, at the hearing, offered to write letters of apology to the University and to the Complainant.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Jephcott is required to provide a written submission which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, within three months from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms Jephcott is required to provide a written submission which evidences her further in depth reflections and demonstrates how she would manage conflicts with colleagues and co-professionals in the spirit of mutual respect expected of a member of the profession. Ms Jephcott is also required to state how she would seek to work collaboratively with members of other professional bodies should similar circumstances occur.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text

back to top

July 2015: Karen Woodall, Reference No: 704956, London E14

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the Complainant stated that she engaged in family therapy for her ex-husband and daughter with a family therapist, Ms Woodall between 7 October 2012 and 6 January 2013. The Complainant alleged that whilst engaging with the therapy, issues arose regarding Ms Woodall's reliability, working methods, confidentiality and fees. In addition, the Complainant complained to the organisation known as [ . . . ], the employer of Ms Woodall, regarding these issues on the 26 March 2013, but was unsatisfied with its response.

The Complainant stated that when she started to work with Ms Woodall on 7 October 2012, she expected to engage weekly with her. The Complainant alleged that Ms Woodall did not engage in weekly sessions, but relied on email and planned telephone conversations that on occasion did not take place, leaving the Complainant waiting for the call. The Complainant also alleged that she arrived for an appointment with Ms Woodall, and waited for 45 minutes before leaving because Ms Woodall did not arrive.

The Complainant alleged that she was concerned about the working methods of Ms Woodall when Ms Woodall produced an assessment of the family situation without meeting her daughter. The Complainant also alleged that Ms Woodall was communicating with her daughter by email without obtaining her parents' consent.

The Complainant further alleged that confidentiality was breached by Ms Woodall in her email of 27 November 2012, when she discussed her communications with the Complainant's ex-husband and asked her to keep 'secrets'.

The Complainant also alleged that the system of charging fees by Ms Woodall was unclear and misleading and led to confusions regarding how much was charged. The Complainant alleged that different fees were discussed at different times leading to confusion regarding unexpected double charging for joint sessions.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Ms Woodall allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care by failing to provide the weekly sessions that had been agreed between her and the Complainant at the outset, instead giving advice by email, postponing or cancelling face to face and telephone appointments, failing to return telephone calls and keeping the Complainant waiting for 45 minutes for a pre-arranged appointment, which in the end Ms Woodall did not attend.

2. Ms Woodall allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both parties, by not being sufficiently clear regarding the fees that should be paid and not stating that she would be communicating with the Complainant's daughter before they had met or seeking consent from the Complainant prior to initiating this contact.

3. Ms Woodall allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a competently delivered service in that she frequently cancelled appointments or failed to show up and conducted an assessment of the Complainant's family without meeting her daughter.

4. Ms Woodall allegedly did not adequately inform the Complainant about the nature of the service that she was offering or respect the Complainant's right to choose to withdraw, by continuing to contact the Complainant's daughter, after the Complainant had terminated the therapy.

5. Ms Woodall allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's confidentiality by revealing to the Complainant, details relating to her ex-husband and asking the Complainant to keep the information that she (Ms Woodall) had obtained from her ex-husband a secret from him.

6. Ms Woodall allegedly failed to clarify the terms on which her services were being offered to the Complainant in that she charged the Complainant double rate for a joint session when the contract did not make it sufficiently clear that this would be the case.

7. Ms Woodall allegedly did not ensure that information about her services was honest, accurate and avoided unjustifiable claims in that she did not provide weekly therapy sessions as she had offered or clarify the fees for joint counselling.

8. Ms Woodall allegedly was not honest, straight forward and accountable in financial matters concerning the Complainant, in that she did not make clear what the cost of the initial assessment would be, or future costs of joint sessions.

9. Ms Woodall's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 12, 20, 59, 60 and 62 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Sincerity, Integrity, Fairness, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. In an email sent to the Complainant on 7 October 2013, Ms Woodall described the work that would be undertaken, which included six sessions on a weekly basis to be held with the Complainant. Ms Woodall requested that the Complainant email her to confirm that she wanted to proceed on the basis of what she had set out in her email. Whilst the Panel accepted Ms Woodall's evidence that the Complainant did not explicitly email Ms Woodall in the terms that she had requested, it agreed that work between the Complainant and Ms Woodall did commence, albeit not the work that had been set out in Ms Woodall's email. The Panel therefore found that there was an implicit agreement between the parties for the work which took place, largely electronically. Further, the Panel noted that whilst Ms Woodall stated that she required the Complainant to email her to explicitly confirm that she wanted to proceed with the work as it had been set out in her email, there was no evidence in any of the communications from Ms Woodall to the Complainant, to make clear that until Ms Woodall received the explicit confirmation referred to above, she could not work with the Complainant in accordance with the terms which she had set out in her email. As the parties continued to work together, the Panel agreed that it was reasonable for the Complainant to believe that she would be receiving the service that had been set out by Ms Woodall, particularly as Ms Woodall did not tell the Complainant that she would not be receiving this service. As a result of the above, the Panel found that Ms Woodall failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care by failing to provide the weekly sessions that had been agreed between her and the Complainant at the outset, instead giving advice by email. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

Ms Woodall accepted that she missed one appointment with the Complainant due to a misunderstanding and when she was stuck on the train, which resulted in the Complainant having to wait at her offices for 45 minutes. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that with the exception of this appointment, Ms Woodall had postponed or cancelled face to face and telephone appointments or failed to return telephone calls. The Panel accepted that it was not unreasonable for Ms Woodall to have missed one appointment given the circumstances which she had set out. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms Woodall had failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in this regard. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

2. Ms Woodall accepted in her evidence that the fees were unclear and stated that recompense was offered to the Complainant by the organisation for whom she worked, which the Complainant did not accept. Ms Woodall stated that she undertook work with the Complainant on an "informal" basis from 7 October 2012, until the Joint Working Agreement was signed by the Complainant on 12 November 2012. The Panel noted that invoices were submitted to the Complainant for payment before the Joint Working Agreement had been signed. There was no evidence that Ms Woodall had notified the Complainant that she would be charged for these "informal" sessions or what those charges would be. The Panel therefore found that Ms Woodall failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both parties, by not being sufficiently clear regarding the fees that should be paid. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

The Panel noted from the written evidence that the Complainant was aware from her joint session that Ms Woodall would be communicating with her daughter and there was no evidence that the Complainant had explicitly told Ms Woodall that she did not want her to communicate with her daughter. The Panel was therefore satisfied that Ms Woodall had consent to communicate with the Complainant's daughter. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Woodall failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both parties in not stating that she would be communicating with the Complainant's daughter before they had met and not seeking consent to do so. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is partially upheld.

3. Ms Woodall in her evidence stated that she did not cancel any appointments, save for the one which she did not attend due to circumstances beyond her control and a misunderstanding between the parties. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Woodall failed to provide the Complainant with a competently delivered service in frequently cancelling appointments or failing to show up. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

Ms Woodall denied that she had carried out an assessment of the Complainant's daughter. The Panel however noted the contents of the report which Ms Woodall submitted to the Complainant and her ex-husband by email on 7 October 2012, which was headed "About your child" and in which she discussed the child and used words such as "[....] is suffering from", and "...I make this diagnosis" which could reasonably be interpreted by the Complainant as an assessment. The Panel found that the words used by Ms Woodall within her report amounted to an assessment and that this assessment was carried out before Ms Woodall had met the Complainant's daughter. The Panel therefore found that Ms Woodall failed to provide the Complainant with a competently delivered service in conducting an assessment of the Complainant's family without meeting her daughter. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is partially upheld.

4. Ms Woodall accepted in her evidence that much of the work that she did with the Complainant and her ex-husband was on an "informal" basis which was not contracted and that she did not set out to the Complainant the nature of the "informal" work she was providing. The Panel therefore found that Ms Woodall did not adequately inform the Complainant about the nature of the service that she was offering. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

Ms Woodall in her evidence stated that the Complainant terminated the Joint Working Agreement on 31 December 2012, and that after this date, no further work was carried out for the family under this agreement. As such the Panel did not find that Ms Woodall did not respect the Complainant's right to choose to withdraw, by continuing to contact the Complainant's daughter after she had terminated the therapy. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is partially upheld.

5. The Complainant in her evidence stated that whilst Ms Woodall provided details to her about her ex-husband and asked her to keep this secret from him, she was not aware that Ms Woodall had breached her own confidentiality. Ms Woodall in her evidence stated that she did not reveal anything to the Complainant that she did not already know. As such, the Panel did not find that Ms Woodall failed to respect the Complainant's confidentiality. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

6. Ms Woodall in her evidence accepted that there was a misunderstanding regarding the fees that were charged to the Complainant, wherein it was stated that joint sessions were £90 but were in fact £90 per person. Ms Woodall however stated that the fees were the responsibility of the finance officer at the organisation where she worked and not hers. The Panel found that it was Ms Woodall's responsibility to ensure that when she was communicating with the Complainant, she was clear with her about what the fees were. The Panel therefore found that Ms Woodall failed to clarify the terms on which her services were being offered, in charging double rate for a joint session when the contract did not make it sufficiently clear that this would be the case. This allegation is therefore upheld.

7. Ms Woodall in her oral evidence stated that whilst she had set out in her email on 7 October 2012 that weekly sessions would be provided to the Complainant, this was not done as the Complainant did not email her to explicitly confirm that she wanted to proceed on the basis of what had been set out in the email. The Panel however found that despite this lack of confirmation, Ms Woodall continued to work with the Complainant and did not make it clear to the Complainant the terms under which this work was being provided or inform her that she would not be working in accordance with the work agreement she had set out. In the absence of this, the Panel found that it was reasonable for the Complainant to expect to receive the service which Ms Woodall had set out within her email. The Panel therefore found that Ms Woodall did not ensure that the information about her services was accurate and avoided unjustifiable claims. Further, the Panel found that Ms Woodall did not clarify the fees for the joint session as found in paragraph 6 above. The Panel therefore found that Ms Woodall also failed to ensure that information about her services was accurate and avoided unjustifiable claims in respect of this part of the allegation. This allegation is therefore upheld.

8. The Panel noted that there were was conflicting information provided in the email sent by Ms Woodall on 7 October 2012 and the information provided in the hand outs, in relation to what the cost of the assessment would be, and the fee for the joint sessions was not made sufficiently clear to the Complainant. The Panel further noted that when the organisation for which Ms Woodall worked became aware of the confusion, it offered a refund to the Complainant that she did not accept. Whilst the Panel found that this information was not straightforward, it did not find that there was any intention to deceive and therefore did not find that Ms Woodall was not honest and accountable in financial matters concerning the Complainant. It did, however, find that Ms Woodall was not straightforward concerning financial matters with the Complainant. This allegation is therefore partially upheld.

9. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 12, 59, 60 and 62 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy and Autonomy had been breached. It also found that Ms Woodall lacked the personal moral qualities of Sincerity, Integrity, Competence and Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire. The Panel did not find that paragraph 20 of the Ethical Framework had been breached nor had the ethical principles of Beneficence, Non-Maleficence or Justice or the personal moral quality of Fairness.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice on the grounds of recklessness and the provision of inadequate professional services in that the service for which Ms Woodall provided fell below the standard that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Ms Woodall did not provide any evidence in mitigation.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Woodall is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflections on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, within 6 months from the date of imposition, Ms Woodall is required to attend a CPD course of a minimum of 1 day's duration. The content of the course should cover working within closely contracted and negotiated boundaries. On completion of the course, Ms Woodall is required to provide documentary evidence that she has attended and completed the course.

Having completed the CPD activities, Ms Woodall is required to write a report that demonstrates how the course has allowed her to develop substantial new understanding of her part in the lack of clarity that led to this complaint and how she would now check to ensure that the client understands the service which is being provided and that Ms Woodall has explicit consent to continue.

This report should be completed in not less than three months and not more than six months following the completion of the CPD course and must be signed off by Ms Woodall's supervisor as being an accurate description of her learning.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)

back to top

June 2015: Robert Morrisey, Reference No: 705648, Rochdale OL16

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel is that the Complainant alleged that she entered counselling with Mr Morrisey in January 2013. She alleged that he encouraged her to email him between sessions. An email at the end of January 2013, suggests that she wished to terminate counselling, having had three sessions, because of issues that were coming up for her. The Complainant also asserted that the counselling lasted until April 2013, and that during that time she met Mr Morrisey for coffee; that he telephoned her most days; that he visited her at her place of work and that there was sexual intimacy. The Complainant stated that Mr Morrisey sent pictures of his genitals to her and engaged in telephone sex with her.

The Complainant alleged that after the counselling had terminated, she and Mr Morrisey entered into a business relationship together, that she put a lot of money into the business and lent him money; and that when he left the business in early 2014 she was left with considerable debt. The Complainant alleged that Mr Morrisey asked her to sign forms for a counselling course he was attending as if she were his supervisor, which she was not. The Complainant alleged that in February 2014, Mr Morrisey inappropriately discussed one of his clients with her, and that he left client files and other confidential notes from his practice in her office. The Complainant stated that she tried several times to talk to Mr Morrissey to get closure on their relationship, and that
she has been left emotionally and financially harmed by their relationship.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that he entered into a personal relationship with her which caused her emotional harm.

2. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both him as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client, in that he failed to set out and maintain appropriate boundaries in their counselling relationship.

3. Mr Morrisey allegedly entered into a dual relationship with the Complainant, in that he was concurrently engaged in a personal and therapeutic relationship with the Complainant, which was to her detriment.

4. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to have formal supervision for his work in accordance with professional requirements and review his need for professional and personal support and obtain appropriate services for them, in that he asked the Complainant to act as his supervisor by signing forms for his college work when the Complainant was not his supervisor.

5. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to pay careful attention to client consent and confidentiality, in that he left confidential information relating to the Complainant and other clients in a filing cabinet which was accessible to others.

6. Mr Morrisey allegedly abused the Complainant's trust in order to gain sexual, emotional or other kind of personal advantage, in that he entered into a sexual relationship with the Complainant during or shortly after the end of their counselling relationship.

7. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to exercise considerable caution before entering into a personal or business relationship with the Complainant, who was a former or current client.

8. Mr Morrisey allegedly abused the Complainant's trust in order to gain financial advantage, in that he exploited the Complainant financially in the business that they ran together and allowed the Complainant to pay for personal items for him and spend money on him.

9. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality and protect personally identifiable information relating to the Complainant and other clients from unauthorised disclosure, in that he left confidential information relating to the Complainant and other clients in a filing cabinet which was accessible to others, and allegedly discussed one of his clients with her.

10. Mr Morrisey allegedly failed to remedy the emotional harm that he had caused to the Complainant.

11. Mr Morrisey's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 17, 20 and 42 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Point preliminary to the findings:

The Complainant confirmed that there was a typographical error on page 1 of her complaint form and the date "2012" should read "2013". The Panel accepted the amendment.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. Mr Morrisey maintained that there had been no counselling relationship with the Complainant because he had declined to accept her as a psychotherapy client. The Panel was satisfied, having regard to the written and oral evidence that there had been a counselling relationship in January and February 2013, (it may have continued to April 2013 but the evidence as to when it ended was unclear). In reaching this conclusion, the Panel noted that there was no dispute that at the outset the Complainant had paid for two sessions with Mr Morrisey. Moreover, such payment ruled out the suggestion that the Complainant had approached him to discuss business matters, not therapy. There was no evidence to support the suggestion that Mr Morrisey gave hypnotherapy services (as distinct from psychotherapy), and Mr Morrisey's initial assessment notes did not refer to hypnotherapy or the client's weight. In his email to the Complainant dated 30 January 2013, Mr Morrisey described himself as her therapist. He wrote, 'If you have decided to quit then that's your choice and I respect it. I hope the last three weeks have helped in some way your turmoil... I will and would have gone the distance ....I remain your friend and therapist'. The Panel also considered that the Complainant's email to Mr Morrisey dated 4 February 2013 was in its language and tone typical of a client in therapy. Having determined that there was a counsellor/client relationship, the Panel then considered if the boundaries had been broken by a personal relationship between the two parties and found that to be the case. Mr Morrisey did not deny that after having met the Complainant in 2013 a personal friendship quickly developed. He said they had enjoyed an amicable friendship for a number of months and described their relationship as an "entity of friends". The Panel found that by entering into a personal relationship with his client, Mr Morrisey had caused her emotional harm by confusing the professional and the personal boundaries and that this amounted to failing to provide her with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

2. As noted above, the Panel was satisfied that Mr Morrisey did provide counselling to the Complainant. By his own admission in oral evidence, he accepted that there was no written counselling contract between them. A written contract is not mandatory, however, counsellors are expected to establish a framework making it clear how services are to be delivered and the nature of the therapy so the client knows what to expect, and agrees to it. There was no evidence that he had contracted with the client orally or in writing. He and the client then become personally friendly. The Panel found that Mr Morrisey had failed to clarify with his client his and her responsibilities at the outset and failed to do so at any point subsequently, despite the changing nature of the relationship. As a result the formal boundaries which exist for the benefit of both the client and counsellor had not been established. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

3. As noted above, the Panel found that there had been a counselling relationship between Mr Morrisey and his client and out of this a personal friendship had quickly developed. The position is well encapsulated in Mr Morrisey's email to the Complainant dated 30 January 2013, in which he said "I remain your friend and therapist". It was in January that they had first met and the counselling relationship began. In oral evidence both parties agreed that they had often met during 2013 for lunch, coffee, garden centre visits and that the Complainant had met members of Mr Morrisey's family. The parties also agreed that the Complainant had given Mr Morrisey massage on a number of occasions (although they disagreed as to whether there was an erotic element to the massages). There was a difference between them as to when the therapeutic relationship ended. The Complainant said in oral and written evidence that it ended in April 2013, whereas Mr Morrisey maintained in his written evidence there had been no such relationship but said in oral evidence that he could not remember exactly but thought that "the professional relationship ended around February". The Panel was satisfied that there had been a concurrent therapeutic and personal relationship in January - February 2013 at least and they considered such a dual relationship was to the client's detriment because boundaries were blurred. Additionally, the personal relationship had continued for many months subsequently and the confusion of roles was detrimental to the Complainant. Accordingly this allegation is upheld.

4. As part of his training course in 2013, Mr Morrisey was required to have supervision in respect of his placement clients. He stated to the Panel that one supervisor had died, (he gave no date of death) and another had moved to London. He had looked to the Complainant as a friend for assistance to enable him to demonstrate that he had satisfactorily completed the supervision requirements by the college deadline. The Panel found that the Complainant had completed and signed the training college's Supervision Form in June 2013 as Mr Morrisey's supervisor and that Mr Morrisey had countersigned it. Both parties accepted this. Mr Morrisey maintained to the Panel that the Complainant had been a very helpful and competent supervisor. The Panel considered that the Complainant was not qualified to supervise, her only qualification in the field of counselling being a one year counselling skills course undertaken in 1998. Mr Morrisey and the Complainant said they had often met in cafes to discuss matters which in the Panel's view was unprofessional and put confidentiality at risk. The Panel found Mr Morrisey's evidence as to the number of sessions was contradictory. On the one hand he had stated that he "rarely saw" the Complainant and most of their contact was by email, but on the other hand he said he had a number of supervision meetings with her. Mr Morrisey's evidence about the actual number of purported supervision sessions was also contradictory. On the form signed by Mr Morrisey it stated there had been 18 sessions but in oral evidence he said there had been fewer than that. In the Panel's view it would have been difficult to hold therapy sessions and fit in 18 supervisions in the period February - June 2013. The Panel noted that although Mr Morrisey had wanted the Complainant to be his supervisor, in relation to her becoming a client he had claimed in his evidence that her psychiatric history made her unsuitable to be his client and it was therefore difficult to reconcile Mr Morrisey's different assessments of the Complainant. The Complainant in her oral
evidence said she and Mr Morrissey met often but she had not acted as his supervisor, she did not consider herself qualified to do so and she had compiled the form as a personal favour to him. On the basis of the matters identified above, the Panel found that Mr Morrisey had failed to have formal supervision. The Complainant was not qualified to supervise and whatever the discussions between them they did not amount to professional supervision. The Panel was concerned to note that Mr Morrisey had submitted to his training college, a signed record which seriously misrepresented the position. This allegation is upheld.

5. According to the Complainant, Mr Morrisey had left confidential client-related papers in an unlocked filing cabinet in the Bank Chambers building whose premises they shared. Mr Morrisey denied this and stated he kept confidential material in his locked desk drawer. He stated that the client sheet in relation to the Complainant which she had evidenced came into her possession because he had given it to her, not because she had found it. The Complainant had no further evidence relating to the documentation about herself or others and the Panel concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim. Accordingly this allegation is not upheld.

6. The Panel read and heard starkly different statements from the Complainant and Mr Morrisey as to whether there had been a sexual relationship between them. The Complainant spoke in detail about sexual acts whereas Mr Morrisey firmly denied there had been sexual intercourse or any form of sexual or improper contact or exchanges. The Complainant referred in her written and oral evidence to pictorial and email evidence but she did not produce any. The Panel concluded after very careful consideration that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. Accordingly this allegation is not upheld.

7. As noted at 1 above, the Panel found, indeed it was not disputed, that there had been an amicable personal friendship between the parties for a number of months. The Panel went on to consider if Mr Morrisey had had a business relationship with the Complainant as she claimed and he denied. It was not disputed that there was no evidence by way of a written contract or other agreement or financial records of a business relationship. Nevertheless the following led the Panel to conclude that Mr Morrisey had been engaged in running a business with the Complainant. There were a significant number of emails which showed Mr Morrisey to be actively involved in the marketing and setting up of the clinic at Bank Chambers such as one dated 29/9/13 in which he says "I thin (sic) eventually.(sic) we will have to spend a little...";one dated 27/9/13 in relation to banners and brochures "I will sort the thing this weekend, ok.". Other emails sent to clients showed them to be clients of Mr Morrisey and the Complainant, such as one dated 1/2/14 "...our clinics ethos is 'client first at all times'. So with that in mind I discussed with (Complainant)..." and "I look forward to seeing you next week, though it may well be with (Complainant)...". In an email exchange on 9/3/14 Mr Morrisey had evidently laundered the towels for the clinic. The majority of Mr Morrisey's emails were signed off "Counsellor and Psychotherapist".

Mr Morrisey had entered into a personal relationship with the client and then a business relationship with her, at which point she was a former client. He did not demonstrate to the Panel that he
had considered the implications of this, or the impact on the other party or on his professional practice and the profession itself. Mr Morrisey suggested that the absence of a written contract or other formal agreement absolved him of responsibility but in the Panel's view failing to put the business arrangements on a formal footing was irresponsible and unprofessional. Mr Morrisey had failed to exercise caution before entering these relationships and accordingly this allegation is upheld.

8. The allegation that he had exploited the Complainant financially in the business and had received money and gifts from her was denied by Mr Morrisey in his oral and written evidence. The Complainant produced no corroborative evidence such as bank accounts or receipts. In view of the conflict of evidence between the parties and the absence of any independent evidence this allegation is not upheld.

9. For the reasons stated in finding 5 above, the part of the allegation regarding confidential client-related papers being left in an unlocked filing cabinet is not upheld. Mr Morrisey denied having discussed one of his clients with the Complainant in terms which would identify the client and the Panel concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate this aspect of the allegation. Accordingly, the allegation is not upheld.

10. The Complainant had not produced any evidence of her contacts with Mr Morrisey expressing her concerns to him. For his part, Mr Morrisey stated that after he had withdrawn from Bank Chambers and dropped off his keys the Complainant had sent him texts in 2014 but they were abusive and therefore he ignored them. In view of the lack of evidence the allegation that he had failed to remedy emotional harm was not upheld.

11. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7 and 17 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013) had been breached. It also found that Mr Morrisey demonstrated a lack of the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 11, 20 and 42 of the Ethical Framework had not been breached.

Decision

The Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that the service for which Mr Morrisey was responsible fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable skill. The Panel found that Mr Morrisey was reckless, incompetent and provided an inadequate professional service.

Mitigation

The Panel noted that Mr Morrisey had serious and chronic health problems and he had also experienced family illness and bereavements during the period in question.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of the imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Morrisey is required to provide a written submission which evidences his immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of the issues raised in this complaint.

Within three months, he is required to provide written evidence of changes he would make to his counselling and psychotherapy practice as a result of this complaint. In addition Mr Morrisey is required to provide written evidence which demonstrates his understanding of the ethical issues raised in this complaint

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

back to top

June 2015: Roddy Macdonald, Reference No: 598547, Edinburgh EH12

The complaint against the above individual member/registrant was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel is that the Complainant was in weekly counselling with Mr Macdonald from February to May 2010, and from September 2010 to January 2014. In a session immediately following recovery from a suicide attempt the Complainant stated that she experienced Mr Macdonald as hostile and angry, which for some weeks made it difficult for the Complainant to trust him. Mr Macdonald denied he had been hostile, and explained her perception of him as transference. In February 2013 the Complainant happened to meet Mr Macdonald outside counselling when he was accompanied by a woman whom the Complainant alleged was his client. The Complainant alleged that a negative exchange of looks passed between the couple when she passed them, and that the woman allegedly sent a critical email to the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that the email contained confidential material that the Complainant had shared in her counselling with Mr Macdonald; and further alleged that Mr Macdonald assisted the woman in composing the email. The Complainant alleged that Mr Macdonald made reference to her therapy in front of his wife. She alleged that she and Mr Macdonald were involved in multiple relationships and that these hampered her therapy with him. When Mr Macdonald left the agency through which he had been seeing the Complainant, he allegedly used manipulative language in an email to persuade the Complainant to continue working with him. Whilst Mr Macdonald was trying to find new premises in which to continue counselling, arrangements for their sessions were allegedly haphazard and confusing, and included meeting in the Complainant's home. Allegedly Mr Macdonald shared details of his leaving the agency with the Complainant. Having allegedly encouraged the Complainant to email him when necessary, at a later time Mr Macdonald allegedly rarely responded to her emails, distancing himself from her. The Complainant alleged that in January 2014 Mr Macdonald failed to respond appropriately when she sent an email following a session when she had talked about her experience of sexual abuse, and that her distress at this alleged failure made it too difficult to attend the next session. She alleged that he was then critical of her in an email replying to a text she had sent him. When Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to respond to a further email she terminated the counselling, requesting a copy of his notes on her counselling. Mr Macdonald allegedly told her he had been advised not to give her access to them. The Complainant alleged that Ms Macdonald groomed her into a position of dependency upon him and that he abused her trust.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

A typographical error was identified within allegation 7 and this error has been rectified and reflected within the finding for allegation 7.

1. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in that the arrangements for appointments following Mr Macdonald's suspension from his place of work were haphazard and unclear leading to confusion for the Complainant.

2. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in that he manipulated the Complainant into continuing to see him when he left the agency for whom he had previously worked.

3. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in that whilst he encouraged email contact from the Complainant, he either failed to respond to some of her emails or failed to respond appropriately to them and subsequently distanced himself from the Complainant.

4. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of his training and experience and work within these limits, in that he continued to offer counselling to the Complainant rather than refer her to another therapist when they entered into a personal relationship and when the Complainant had attempted suicide and expressed that she was suffering from depression.

5. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both him as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client, including the setting and maintaining of appropriate boundaries either whilst he was seeing the Complainant through the agency or when he left the agency.

6. Mr Macdonald allegedly entered into a dual relationship with the Complainant which was to her detriment in that he provided therapy and entered into a personal relationship with the Complainant, which included visiting the Complainant at home socially, meeting her for coffee, and extensive out of session email and text contact.

7. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to have respect for the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality and pay careful attention to her privacy and dignity in that, without the Complainant's consent, he discussed the Complainant's therapy appointment in front of his wife; revealed confidential information concerning the Complainant to a third party whom he was allegedly involved in a personal relationship with; and allegedly provided counselling to the Complainant at the home of a mutual friend.

8. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to ensure that the Complainant was adequately informed about the nature of the services being offered to her in that he failed to inform and agree with the Complainant the venue for their counselling sessions or the method by which the therapy would take place as some of the therapy took place via FaceTime instead of face to face as had previously been the case.

9. Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to be clear about any commitment to be available to the Complainant and honour these commitments, in that he cancelled appointments or forgot them and encouraged the Complainant to email him but failed to respond appropriately or at all to some of those emails.

10. Mr Macdonald's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 19 and 20, and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Member Complained Against notified BACP that he would no longer be participating in the hearing via skype. The matter was therefore referred under paragraph 4.9 of the Professional
Conduct Procedure, which states:

Where a Complainant or Member Complained Against fails or refuses to attend a Professional Conduct Hearing, the Registrar has the power to decide to either:

a) Proceed with the Hearing in the absence of one or both of the parties; or

b) Adjourn the Hearing to a date not less than 28 days in advance; or

c) Terminate the proceedings; or

d) Refer the matter for consideration under Article 12.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The options were carefully considered, and in light of the circumstances, a decision was made to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Member Complained Against.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. The Complainant in her evidence explained that following Mr Macdonald's suspension from work, there were at least three appointments that were either changed or cancelled. The Complainant explained that the start of one appointment time was delayed because Mr Macdonald was held up at a meeting, another appointment was cancelled because Mr Macdonald had to attend an interview and another appointment took place later than agreed as Mr Macdonald had forgotten that an appointment had been scheduled. There was also written evidence within the bundle that the Complainant was unclear on the arrangement of their appointments. The Panel accepted the Complainant's evidence that these arrangements were haphazard and unclear and whilst it did not cause confusion for her, it did cause her distress. The Panel therefore found that Mr Macdonald failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in the arrangement of appointments following his suspension from work. This allegation is therefore upheld, with the exception that the Panel did not find that these arrangements led to confusion for the Complainant.

2. The Complainant in her oral evidence stated that she felt manipulated into continuing to work with Mr Macdonald following his departure from the agency, as he told her that he was being forced to leave. Whilst the Panel took note of the Complainant's evidence, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Macdonald had made any overt attempt to manipulate the Complainant into continuing to work with him. The Panel therefore did not find that Mr Macdonald failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in manipulating her to continue to see him after he left the agency. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

3. The Panel noted that there was written evidence of a long and detailed correspondence between the parties and the Panel accepted the Complainant's evidence, that these communications were an extension of their therapeutic relationship. The Panel noted that the contract provided to the Complainant whilst she was seeing Mr Macdonald under the auspices of the agency, made it clear that while messages would be responded to, no counselling outside of the agreed counselling time would be in engaged in. The Panel found that in Mr Macdonald responding to the Complainant's emails in the level of detail which he did, he encouraged the Complainant to engage in email contact with him. The Panel also found that following Mr Macdonald's departure from the agency, there was evidence that Mr Macdonald did not respond to some emails sent by the Complainant. In responding to the Complainant's emails in the level of detail that Mr Macdonald did, the Panel found that he did not respond appropriately. In view of the above, the Panel found that Mr Macdonald failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that he encouraged email contact from the Complainant and either failed to respond or respond appropriately to some emails. Further, Mr Macdonald in his written evidence stated that he felt overwhelmed by the email correspondence and his supervisor had recommended that he cut back contact from the Complainant. The Panel accepted that the Complainant experienced this as Mr Macdonald distancing himself from her. The Panel therefore also found this part of the allegation upheld. For the reasons stated, this allegation is upheld.

4. The Complainant was clear in her evidence that she was not engaged in a personal relationship with Mr MacDonald. There was no written or oral evidence presented to the Panel which demonstrated that Mr Macdonald failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of his training and experience and work within these limits in continuing to offer counselling to the Complainant, rather than refer her to another counsellor when the Complainant attempted suicide and expressed that she was suffering from depression. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

5. The Complainant in her evidence stated that there was no contract, written or verbal or any other information provided to her after Mr Macdonald left the agency, which set out the rights and responsibilities of Mr Macdonald as a practitioner and her as a client. The Complainant also stated that no boundaries were set. The Panel noted that the contract provided to the Complainant whilst Mr Macdonald was counselling the Complainant through the agency, stated that no counselling outside of the agreed counselling time would take place. The Panel however noted that Mr Macdonald engaged in a voluminous exchange of emails with the Complainant, which the Panel accepted was an extension of the therapeutic relationship. The Panel therefore accepted the Complainant's evidence that Mr Macdonald did not clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of him as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client, including the setting and maintaining of boundaries either during the time that he was counselling the Complainant through the agency and when he left the agency. This allegation is therefore upheld.

6. In her oral evidence the Complainant stated that the only relationship which existed between her and Mr Macdonald was a therapeutic relationship. The Complainant was clear that she was not engaged in a personal relationship with Mr Macdonald. Further, the Complainant stated that she had never met Mr Macdonald for coffee or met with him socially. The Complainant, in her evidence stated that Mr Macdonald visited her at home on one occasion when she was ill, which was not for counselling purposes, which although unwelcomed by her, was not a social visit. Further, the Complainant in her evidence stated that the email correspondence between her and Mr Macdonald was an extension of their counselling relationship. The Panel therefore did not find that Mr Macdonald entered into a dual relationship with the Complainant which was to her detriment or entered into a personal relationship with the Complainant. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

7. At the hearing, it was noted that there was a typographical error in the wording of this allegation, in that instead of saying privacy and dignity, the first line should read that Mr Macdonald allegedly failed to have respect for the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality, which relates directly to paragraph 20 of the Ethical Framework. The correction to this allegation is reflected within this finding. The remainder of the allegation is correct.

Mr Macdonald in his written evidence accepted that he had mentioned the Complainant's appointment with him in front of his wife, and that this was a mistake. The Panel found that in doing so, Mr Macdonald failed to have respect for the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality and pay careful attention to her privacy and dignity. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

The Complainant stated that an appointment did take place at the home of a mutual friend after an offer of an appointment had been made and there was no venue for the session to take place. The Complainant stated that she therefore asked her friend for the use of a room in her house, to which she agreed. The Complainant stated that this session took place in a separate room. Given that the Complainant agreed the session would take place at her friend's house, the Panel found that Mr Macdonald did not fail to have respect for the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality and pay careful attention to her privacy and dignity. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

The Complainant presented written evidence that Mr Macdonald helped a former friend to compose an email to the Complainant. Whilst the Panel had no reason to doubt this evidence, there was no evidence that in assisting this person to compose an email to the Complainant, Mr Macdonald breached the Complainant's confidentiality. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is partially upheld.

8. The Complainant in her evidence stated that whilst FaceTime was not her preferred method for the therapy sessions, it was preferable to her not having a session at all, and agreed to this whilst Mr Macdonald sourced a venue for the therapy to take place face to face. Further, the Complainant stated that each time a session was arranged she checked whether it would be by FaceTime and Mr Macdonald confirmed that it would be. The Panel therefore found that the Complainant was aware of the method by which the counselling sessions would be taking place following Mr Macdonald's departure from the agency and was aware that sessions would take place in this manner until Mr Macdonald could find a venue. As such, the Panel did not find that Mr Macdonald failed to ensure that the Complainant was adequately informed about the nature of the services being offered to her. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

9. The Complainant in her evidence stated there was at least one appointment that was cancelled because Mr Macdonald had to attend an interview. Tere was also one appointment which Mr Macdonald forgot, and the Complainant had to remind him about, which resulted in the appointment taking place later than planned. The Panel found that in cancelling or forgetting appointments, Mr Macdonald was not clear about his commitment to being available to the Complainant and honour these commitments. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

The Panel found that in continuing to engage in email communications with the Complainant, Mr MacDonald was encouraging the Complainant to email him. The Panel accepted that these communications became an extension of the counselling relationship and found that in responding to these emails in the detail which Mr Macdonald did, where the Complainant was raising therapeutic issues, Mr Macdonald failed to respond appropriately to those emails. The Panel also accepted the Complainant's evidence that there were some emails to which Mr Macdonald did not respond. This allegation is therefore upheld.

10. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principles of Autonomy and Beneficence had been breached. It also found that Mr Macdonald lacked the personal moral qualities of Competence and Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire.

The Panel found that paragraphs 2, 4 and 12 of the Ethical Framework and the ethical principle of Non-Maleficence had not been breached and did not find a lack of the personal moral quality of
humility.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in the provision of inadequate professional services, and incompetence, in that the service for which Mr Macdonald was responsible fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Mr Macdonald in his written evidence accepted that he should not have mentioned the Complainant's appointment with him in front of his wife and that it was a mistake for him to have done so.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Macdonald is required to provide a written submission, which evidences his immediate reflections on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, in no less than three months and no more than nine months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Mr Macdonald is required to attend and successfully complete a CPD course of no less than 6 hours duration on the importance of setting and maintaining boundaries in the therapeutic relationship. Mr Macdonald is required to submit documentary evidence to BACP to evidence that he has attended and successfully completed this course, immediately upon its completion.

Following completion of this course, Mr Macdonald is required to provide a written report detailing his learning on how he sets and maintains boundaries and explains and agrees the rights and responsibilities of him as a practitioner and the client, at appropriate times in the therapeutic relationship, and how he would apply this learning to his practice. This report should be submitted to BACP no later than two weeks after the completion of the course.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

back to top

May 2015: Jan Bardua, Reference No: 678116, Essex SS0

The complaint against the above individual member/registrant was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that in June 2011, the Complainant undertook an addiction assessment at the [ . . . ], which was facilitated by Mr Jan Bardua. Mr Bardua then became the Complainant's group addiction counsellor for the 6 weeks (September-October 2011) that she was an in-patient.

Following her discharge from the [ . . . ] in October 2011, the Complainant stated that she was invited to return to the hospital for several months as an "unofficial peer supporter", by the team of which Mr Bardua was a member.

The Complainant stated that from December 2011, Mr Bardua became her personal counsellor. They met once a week and later twice a week, for two hours each session, at Mr Bardua's home. In addition, from October 2012 to May 2013, the Complainant stated that she and two other clients of Mr Bardua met together for group therapy once a week for one and a half hours per session at Mr Bardua's home. The Complainant alleged that Mr Bardua labelled their relationship as both friendship and also that of client and counsellor and alleged that during the time that she was in therapy with him, she socialised with not only Mr Bardua but with his family as well.

In June 2012, the Complainant stated that she became aware that a complaint had been made against Mr Bardua. However, Mr Bardua and his wife allegedly told her that the complaint was wrong and the Complainant chose to believe Mr Bardua as she had placed so much trust in their relationship.

The counselling relationship ended in May 2013, and allegedly on Mr Bardua's recommendation, the Complainant continued counselling with another counsellor, who was also Mr Bardua's supervisor. The Complainant stated that it was during the course of this work that she realised that Mr Bardua had acted inappropriately towards her. In addition, the Complainant stated that she discovered that Mr Bardua had not discussed his relationship with her, in supervision. As a result, Mr Bardua's supervisor, who was then the Complainant's counsellor allegedly terminated her supervision relationship with Mr Bardua.

Mr Bardua and the Complainant met to discuss what had happened and Mr Bardua allegedly apologised and admitted that he had acted inappropriately and made various promises to the Complainant during this meeting. Mr Bardua also allegedly agreed to cease counselling the Complainant's step-father and offered to and eventually did cease counselling the Complainant's mother.

The Complainant stated that the situation with Mr Bardua has caused her great stress and has had an impact on her family relationships and her college work. The Complainant further stated that she has also suffered depression, anxiety and shame as a result of these incidents.

In accepting this complaint, the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel was concerned with the following areas, and in particular these are:

1. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in that he:

a) Encouraged, initiated and participated in extensive out of session contact with the Complainant and used language of an inappropriate and intimate nature in the text exchanges between them,

b) Failed to deal with sufficiently or at all, the depression and suicidal ideations expressed by the Complainant,

c) Interrupted his sessions with the Complainant to answer the phone and the door, take cigarette breaks, use the toilet, eat food and talk to one of his children,

d) Embraced the Complainant during their sessions and agreed to see members of the Complainant's family whilst he was still counselling her,

e) Shared personal problems with her in sessions, asking for her advice and perspective.

2. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of his training and experience and work within these limits and take advantage of available professional support, in that he did not deal with appropriately or at all the depression and suicidal ideation exhibited by the Complainant.

3. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both him as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client, in that he did not make it clear to the Complainant what his role as a counsellor would be and did not define the boundaries of their relationship.

4. Mr Bardua allegedly entered into a dual relationship with the Complainant, in that he was her counsellor and was involved in a personal relationship with her, which was to her detriment.

5. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to review his need for professional and personal support and obtain appropriate services for himself, in that he did not disclose to his supervisor the full extent of his relationship with the Complainant.

6. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and dignity, in that he entered into late night text exchanges with the Complainant and had telephone contact with her whilst she was on holiday.

7. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and dignity, in that he allowed one of his children to enter the counselling room whilst he was in a counselling session with her.

8. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to pay careful attention to client consent and confidentiality, in that he discussed the Complainant with another client and discussed the Complainant's step-father and mother, who were also his clients, with the Complainant.

9. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to ensure that the Complainant was adequately informed about the nature of the services being offered to her, in that he increased the length and frequency of the sessions without discussing it with the Complainant.

10. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to think carefully about and exercise considerable caution before entering into a personal relationship with the Complainant.

11. Mr Bardua allegedly abused the Complainant's trust in order to gain sexual, emotional, financial or any other kind of personal advantage in that he:

a) Engaged in hugs with the Complainant, one of which was for approximately 15 minutes,

b) Put his tongue in her ear and kissed her,

c) Allowed, encouraged and initiated text contact with the Complainant, which included kisses and inappropriate language such as telling the Complainant that he loved her,

d) Introduced the Complainant to his family and friends and socialised with her,

e) Agreed to provide therapy for the Complainant's family whilst he was still counselling the Complainant, allegedly charging them all a total of approximately £1200 a month for services, thereby abusing the Complainant's trust for financial gain,

f) Told the Complainant that he trusted her with his life.

12. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality, in that he discussed her with other clients, permitted one of his children to interrupt their counselling session and discussed her step-father, who was also one of his clients.

13. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to monitor and maintain his fitness to practise at a level which enabled him to provide an effective service, in that he failed to make adequate use of supervision.

14. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to discuss with his supervisor or other experienced practitioner, the circumstances in which he may have harmed the Complainant in order to ensure that the appropriate steps had been taken to mitigate any harm to her and avoid any repetition.

15. Mr Bardua allegedly failed to avoid and foresee the conflict of interest which could arise in counselling the Complainant and members of her family.

16. Mr Bardua's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 17, 20, 40, 43 & 63 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Self Respect of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Integrity, Respect, Resilience, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. In considering the allegation that Mr Bardua failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, the Panel made the following findings:

(a) In written evidence, the Panel noted the trail of texts that included comments of a very personal nature sent to the Complainant by Mr Bardua, and also heard oral evidence in which Mr Bardua admitted that he had encouraged, at times initiated and participated in extensive out of session contact with the Complainant, and used considerable inappropriate language. The Panel found that this undermined the Therapeutic Relationship and that his conduct at times was rash and impetuous. Therefore this part of the allegation is upheld.

(b) The Panel considered the written and oral evidence from Mr Bardua which addressed the issues of depression and suicidal ideation when working with the Complainant. The Panel accepted that strategies were in place should issues arise about the Complainant's safety if such ideation were to be expressed by her. The Panel was not satisfied, on the evidence presented, that Mr Bardua had failed to deal with, sufficiently or at all, the Complainant's depression and suicidal ideations. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

(c) In both his oral and written evidence Mr Bardua, admitted that he had allowed counselling sessions with the Complainant, to be interrupted, by taking a telephone call, taking breaks and to talk to one of his children. Therefore this part of the allegation is upheld.

(d) (i)In his oral evidence Mr Bardua admitted that he did embrace the Complainant during sessions and assumed it was acceptable to her without discussing his pattern of behaviour with her by way of review. The Panel found that it was Mr Bardua's responsibility to check with the Complainant that she found his actions acceptable and were for her benefit. This he failed to do and therefore this part of the allegation is upheld.

(ii) Both the Complainant and Mr Bardua accepted that Mr Bardua agreed to and then began to see members of her family for counselling whilst still the Complainant's counsellor. In her oral evidence, the Complainant spoke about the negative effect and impact this had on her and continues to have to this day, describing the way that his failure to provide a good quality of care has affected her relationships with her family. She explained that, at the time, she trusted Mr Bardua's judgement about this concurrent work. The Panel noted that whilst Mr Bardua stated that he had discussed with the Complainant, the decision as to whether to also see other members of the Complainant's family whilst counselling the Complainant, and whilst she did not object at the time, he failed to consider the impact that this might have on her. The Panel therefore upheld both elements of allegation 1(d).

(e) The Panel noted that within the text trail there were references to some personal information, but accepted that on the evidence before it, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation, that Mr Bardua discussed, or sought advice and perspective on his personal issues during therapeutic sessions. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, allegation 1 is upheld in part.

2. The Panel noted that Mr Bardua came from a background of previous experience and knowledge, in particular, in dealing with clients who had experienced depression and suicidal ideation and had systems in place to address such risks. Mr Bardua stated in his oral evidence that on receipt of texts from the Complainant, where she had expressed such thoughts, he would follow up with a call to the Complainant to discuss the issue. There was insufficient evidence presented to the Panel to suggest that Mr Bardua failed to take these issues seriously and therefore this allegation is not upheld.

3. The Panel noted Mr Bardua's written and verbal evidence that the boundaries of their multiple relationships had initially been clarified. However, he admitted that these roles subsequently became blurred, and that this was as a result of his failing to ensure that these boundaries were reviewed and sufficiently clarified throughout. Mr Bardua also accepted that in hindsight, it was unwise to work with the Complainant in his private practice directly after working with her in a different therapeutic setting. Therefore, the Panel upheld this allegation.

4. Mr Bardua accepted, both in his written and oral evidence, that a number of dual relationships existed between himself and the Complainant. Namely as counsellor/client, family friendship, personal friendship and Fellowship friendship. He stated that these were discussed prior to the Complainant becoming his private client and re-discussed at a later stage. Mr Bardua stated that both he and the Complainant believed initially that they would be beneficial to the Complainant if properly managed. The Panel heard evidence from the Complainant as to the detrimental impact that these dual relationships had had on her. The Panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence presented before it to demonstrate that the Complainant did not benefit from the dual relationships, and therefore upheld this allegation.

5. In his oral evidence, Mr Bardua stated that "in his innocence", he never considered the need to disclose to his supervisor the full extent of his relationship(s) with the Complainant. The Panel found that it was Mr Bardua's responsibility to recognise and deal with issues, such as taking on a client from one setting to a private client setting, and that as a professional counsellor, he would be expected to review his need for professional support and use supervision to its fullest. The Panel therefore upheld this allegation.

6. The text trail evidenced that Mr Bardua had entered into late night text exchanges with the Complainant. Whilst the Panel heard evidence presented, that it was the Complainant who requested contact whilst she was on holiday, the Panel considered that the nature of the texts were beyond a client/counsellor relationship and were wholly inappropriate and intrusive. For these reasons, the Panel found that Mr Bardua had failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and dignity and therefore this allegation is upheld.

7. In his written and oral evidence, Mr Bardua accepted that he allowed one of his children to enter the counselling room during a session with the Complainant. The Panel found that regardless of the fact that the Complainant did not object at the time, this interruption was not respectful. The Panel therefore upheld this allegation.

8. The Panel noted that there was some evidence that Mr Bardua had discussed the Complainant's step-father and mother, who were also his clients, with the Complainant. However, the Panel considered that it was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that there was insufficient evidence that the substance of the sessions was discussed such that it would amount to a breach of confidentiality. In respect of
the allegation that Mr Bardua also discussed the Complainant with another client, the Panel noted that there was no evidence presented to it to substantiate that this did occur. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

9. The Panel heard evidence from both parties that the length and frequency of sessions between Mr Bardua and the Complainant was discussed. The Complainant stated that at the time she believed that this was to her benefit and agreed to the increase. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

10. Mr Bardua accepted, both in his written and oral evidence that he did enter into a personal relationship with the Complainant. The Panel heard and accepted the evidence from the Complainant as to the detrimental impact that this had had on her, in that she and her family were still in a state of conflict. The Panel therefore found that Mr Bardua had failed to think carefully and did not exercise considerable caution before becoming the Complainant's counsellor and also entering into a personal friendship with the Complainant. The Panel therefore upheld this allegation.

11. In considering whether Mr Bardua abused the Complainant's trust in order to gain sexual, emotional, financial or any other kind of personal advantage, the Panel examined all aspects of the allegation including that listed from (a) to (f);

(a) Whilst there was a conflict of evidence with regard to the length of time of one of the hugs, Mr Bardua admitted that he engaged in hugs with the Complainant.

(b) In his oral evidence, Mr Bardua conceded that he might have engaged in what he considered as horseplay, which was foolish. The Panel also heard clear evidence from the Complainant with respect to this action and was satisfied on balance that this occurred as described by the Complainant.

(c) Mr Bardua admitted that he engaged in texts of an inappropriate nature and referred to the finding at 1(a) above.

(d) Mr Bardua admitted that he did introduce the Complainant to his family and socialised with her.

(e) There was insufficient evidence presented to the Panel to establish whether the cost of £1200 per month for counselling 3 members of the same family was unreasonable in the circumstances.

(f) Mr Bardua admitted that he did say that he trusted the Complainant with his life. The Panel accepted the evidence of Mr Bardua and his witness that this expression originated in the fellowship context and the reason for its use.

However, in the context of counselling and given her issues, the Panel considered that it was unwise to use such an expression.

The Panel was therefore satisfied, given its findings with regard to the constituent elements of allegation 11, save for (e), were such that Mr Bardua had gained an emotional advantage, by creating a culture of dependency on him and control over the Complainant. The Panel therefore upheld this allegation.

12. The Panel was not satisfied on the evidence presented that Mr Bardua had discussed the Complainant with another client. The Panel heard evidence in respect of what matters were discussed with the Complainant's step-father and was not satisfied that the nature of the conversation was such that it amounted to a breach of confidentiality. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld. In his written and oral evidence, Mr Bardua accepted that he allowed one of his children to enter the counseling room during a session with the Complainant, thereby failing to respect the privacy and confidentiality of his client. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

13. In his oral evidence Mr Bardua admitted that he did not make adequate use of supervision, in that he failed to take issues to supervision, which were linked to his counselling of the Complainant. He also stated that at some point he felt at the edge/limit of his skills in relation to the issues that the Complainant was presenting and that the work had become "stuck". It was after this, that a referral was made and the Complainant began to work with Mr Bardua's supervisor, now his ex supervisor. The Panel found that Mr Bardua failed to monitor and maintain his fitness to practice at a level which enabled him to provide an effective service to the Complainant by discussing fully his work with his supervisor and that it was Mr Bardua's responsibility to have done so. Mr Bardua stated that it was now his practice to discuss all aspects of his work with his current supervisor. The Panel therefore upheld this allegation.

14. When Mr Bardua received a text from the Complainant, in February 2013, requesting he contact his supervisor, he did arrange a meeting for supervision. In his oral and written evidence Mr Bardua spoke of his shock on hearing the concerns, expressed by his supervisor and stated his willingness to address how he might have harmed the Complainant and the steps he would be taking to mitigate that harm. However, having begun the discussion, this was the final supervision session with his supervisor as she ended the supervisory relationship with him at that meeting. The Panel found that whilst Mr Bardua had failed to use supervision adequately as detailed in allegation 13 above, Mr Bardua did, when notified by the Complainant of the harm he had caused, discuss this specific issue in supervision; therefore this allegation is not upheld.

15. The Complainant gave evidence in which she described the issues which arose both during and after the counselling relationship, within her family, and the impact of Mr Bardua's decision to take on three members of the same family. Whilst the Panel also heard evidence from both parties, with respect to the discussions that took place between them, about Mr Bardua's decision to take on as clients the Complainant's mother and step-father, the Panel found that it was Mr Bardua's responsibility to give due consideration to the inherent risks of taking on, as clients, members of the same family. The Panel found that Mr Bardua had failed to avoid and foresee the risk of a conflict of interest and therefore this allegation is upheld.

16. In light of the above, the Panel was satisfied that Mr Bardua's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant, and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 17, and 40 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice, and the Ethical Principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficance and Self-Respect. The Panel also found that Mr Bardua lacked the Personal Moral Qualities of Integrity, Respect, Resilience, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire. The Panel did not find a contravention of paragraphs 2, 20 or 43 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in that the service for which Mr Bardua was responsible fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable skill. The Panel found that Mr Bardua was incompetent, reckless and provided inadequate professional services.

Mitigation

Mr Bardua confirmed that he had entered into personal therapy to process and understand the issues raised by the complaint.

He provided evidence of courses he had attended, since the complaint, addressing boundary issues. Mr Bardua had also apologised both in his written and oral evidence, with regard to the failings which he had admitted.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Bardua should provide a written submission, which evidences his immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, in not less than 6 months and no more than 18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Mr Bardua is required to provide three separate, written reports based on his current client work, which are as follows:

1. A case study, showing how he contracts with clients and clarifies rights and responsibilities with clients generally. Mr Bardua should present evidence that this has been discussed in supervision.

2. A report demonstrating a profound understanding of dual relationships, the significance of these relationships, their impact and the possible harm to clients that may be caused by them. Mr Bardua should support the study with reference to literature available about dual relationships and present evidence that this has been discussed in supervision.

3. A report evidencing Mr Bardua's reflections on the use of supervision, with examples from his clinical work and how he has used supervision to improve his practice. Mr Bardua should present evidence that this has been discussed in supervision.

His current supervisor should sign off all these three reports and verify that the content of these reports has been discussed in supervision.

Mr Bardua's accreditation is suspended until the sanction above has been considered as satisfactorily completed by a Sanction Panel.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)

back to top

May 2015: Susan Campbell, Reference No: 541500, Sheffield S8

The complaint against the above individual member/registrant was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure. The decision of the professional conduct panel was appealed and subsequently considered at an Appeal Hearing.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panels considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, was that the Complainant was invited with her husband to meet Ms Campbell, who had seen her husband as a client at a previous session. They attended in October 2013. The Complainant believed this was a one-off meeting, and stated that it was not made clear to her what the purpose of the session was; but she had not expected it to be couple's counselling.

The Complainant stated that at the beginning of the session, Ms Campbell did not introduce herself, nor explain the purpose of the session, or seek the Complainant's agreement to proceeding with what the Complainant perceived as couple's counselling. The Complainant stated that the session was poorly facilitated and that various statements she herself made about her medical conditions were not nderstood by Ms Campbell, or were treated judgmentally, as Ms Campbell was allegedly dismissive in her responses.

The Complainant experienced Ms Campbell as giving her no opportunity to explain about some of her physical problems. Ms Campbell also allegedly suggested the couple massage each other, although this would have aggravated the Complainant's psoriasis.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular are as follows:

1. Ms Campbell allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in that she failed to introduce herself at the commencement of the session and did not make clear the type of therapy that the Complainant was receiving.

2. Ms Campbell allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience in that when the Complainant was discussing the side effects from her medical treatment Ms Campbell dismissed these side effects as being the result of the treatment going wrong and also recommended that the Complainant and her husband massage each other with baby oil without being aware of the effect that this would have on the Complainant's psoriasis.

3. Ms Campbell allegedly failed to be attentive to the quality of listening and respect offered to the Complainant in that she did not listen to the Complainant's attempts to explain how her medical conditions affected her.

4. Ms Campbell allegedly failed to adequately inform the Complainant about the nature of the service that was being offered to her in that the Complainant was unaware of whether she was attending couples counselling or attending to explain how her husband's behaviour was affecting her.

5. Ms Campbell allegedly failed to ensure that her services were delivered on the basis of the Complainant's explicit consent in that she did not seek the Complainant's consent to participate in couple's therapy.

6. Ms Campbell allegedly failed to clarify the terms on which her services were being offered to the Complainant, in that she did not provide any written or verbal information to the Complainant in advance of or during the course of the session that the Complainant attended, explaining the nature of the services she was providing.

7. Ms Campbell's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 and 59 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings and decision of the professional conduct panel

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. Ms Campbell accepted on questioning that she did not introduce herself to the Complainant when both she and her husband arrived, as she had assumed that the Complainant's husband had already told the Complainant who she was. The Panel found that it was unwise for Ms Campbell to have made such an assumption and accepted the Complainant's evidence that she felt uncomfortable as a result of Ms Campbell not introducing herself. The Panel agreed that this amounted to a failure to provide a good quality of care. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

There was a difference of opinion between the parties as to whether Ms Campbell had made it clear the type of therapy that the Complainant was receiving. The Complainant stated that it did not become apparent to her that she was receiving couples therapy until approximately 30-40 minutes into the session. The Panel found that Ms Campbell, having already seen the Complainant's husband individually, had discussed with him in detail the nature of the couples counselling that she provided and had again made assumptions that the Complainant's husband would relay this information to the Complainant. The Panel found that it was Ms Campbell's responsibility to ensure from the outset that it was made clear to the Complainant the type of therapy that was being provided to her. The Panel found that in failing to introduce herself to the Complainant and making it sufficiently clear to the Complainant the type of therapy she was receiving, Ms Campbell failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld. For the reasons stated above the entirety of this allegation is upheld.

2. There was a sharp disagreement between the parties as to whether Ms Campbell had dismissed the Complainant's side effects as being the result of her treatment going wrong. Ms Campbell gave verbal evidence of her qualifications, training and experience and the Panel found that none of these would have equipped Ms Campbell to make pronouncements on the side effects of medical treatment. However, there was insufficient evidence that Ms Campbell had made such an assessment. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Campbell failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience in this regard. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

It was accepted by both parties that Ms Campbell had made a suggestion to the Complainant and her husband that they massage each other at home. This suggestion was made without any assessment of the potential negative effects that this could have on the Complainant's psoriasis. Whilst Ms Campbell stated that she did not specify the type of oil that the Complainant should use, the Panel accepted the Complainant's evidence that baby oil was the type of oil she had understood to be recommended by Ms Campbell. The Panel
found that Ms Campbell did not possess the required expertise to recommend that the Complainant and her husband massage each other with oil of any kind. The Panel therefore found that Ms Campbell failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience in this regard. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

3. The Complainant in her evidence stated that she did not feel heard when she was discussing the impact of her medical conditions with Ms Campbell. However both parties accepted that a great deal of the session was spent with a focus on the Complainant's medical conditions. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence that Ms Campbell failed to be attentive to the quality of listening and respect offered to Ms Campbell in this regard, particularly when there was evidence that the Complainant's medical conditions were discussed. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

4. There was disagreement between the parties in relation to this allegation. Ms Campbell stated that she explicitly referred to couples counselling at various points during the session but the Complainant stated that it did not become apparent that she was receiving couples counselling until approximately 30-40 minutes into the session. The Panel found that given that this was the first time that Ms Campbell had seen the Complainant and that she was unaware of what, if any, information the Complainant had been provided with prior to the session, it was Ms Campbell's responsibility to make it sufficiently clear to the Complainant at the outset, the purpose of the session and to check with the Complainant that she understood that couples therapy was what was being offered. The Panel therefore found that Ms Campbell failed to adequately inform the Complainant about the nature of the service that was being offered to her. This allegation is therefore upheld.

5. Ms Campbell accepted in evidence that at no point during the session did she seek the Complainant's explicit consent to participate in couples counselling and assumed that her attendance was evidence of the Complainant's implicit consent to participate. The Panel found that Ms Campbell failed to obtain adequately informed consent from the Complainant and in failing to seek the Complainant's explicit consent, paid insufficient attention to the Complainant's autonomy. The Panel therefore found that Ms Campbell failed to ensure that her services were delivered on the basis of the Complainant's explicit consent. This allegation is therefore upheld.

6. Ms Campbell in her evidence stated that she had provided information about her services, including a contract, to the Complainant's husband when she saw him individually. Ms Campbell stated that following this individual session the Complainant's husband contacted her for couples counselling. Ms Campbell accepted that she did not provide any information to the Complainant about her services as she assumed that the Complainant's husband would share the contract that she had provided to him with the Complainant and explain the therapy that was being provided. The Complainant stated that she herself was not provided with any information about the services that Ms Campbell was providing either before or during the session. The Panel also heard evidence from both parties that the session started latebut the Complainant and her husband still received a full hour of therapy. The Panel found that Ms Campbell should have herself directly provided the Complainant with either written or verbal information setting out the nature of the services she was providing, which would have enabled the Complainant to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in the therapy. The Panel therefore, found that Ms Campbell failed to clarify the terms on which her services were being offered to the Complainant.This allegation is therefore upheld.

7. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 2, 12, 13 and 59 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non Maleficence had been breached. It also found that Ms Campbell lacked the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect, Competence and Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire. The Panel did not find that paragraph 11 of the Ethical Framework had been breached.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in that the services that Ms Campbell provided fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. In particular, the Panel found that Ms Campbell was incompetent, reckless and provided inadequate professional services.

Mitigation

Ms Campbell stated that she will work on a couples' contract and will now ensure that she introduces herself to new clients when they arrive. Further Ms Campbell stated that she would spend more time clarifying the nature of her services and check that both parties in couples' counselling consent to it. Ms Campbell informed the Panel that she would also have made it clearer to the Complainant that they would spend more time talking about her medical conditions in the Complainant's individual session.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Campbell is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflections on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, within 6 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Campbell is required to provide a detailed written report which covers the following areas:

- The importance of boundaries in relation to time keeping regarding the length of the session.

- The information that should be given to clients at the outset of the assessment session concerning the type of therapy that is being provided, the format of the therapy and the rights and responsibilities of Ms Campbell as a practitioner and of the client;

- The importance of a good contract and how therapeutic interventions can affect those with medical conditions;

- Meeting and greeting clients;

Within the report, Ms Campbell must give examples of how she deals with the above areas in her client work.

The above report should be countersigned, by an experienced supervisor (more than five years practice as a supervisor) who is outside of her current supervision network, to confirm that the matters referred to within the report have been discussed in supervision. The supervisor must also confirm how long they have been supervising.

Ms Campbell is also required to provide a copy of her couples' contract which is not restricted to but should cover the following areas:

- Confidentiality

- Payment of sessions

- The Procedure in relation to missed sessions and lateness

In addition to the above, Ms Campbell is also required to provide copies of all written information that she gives to clients both before and during therapy.

Within 8 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Campbell is required to appear for interview before the Sanction Panel, where she will be required to further demonstrate how she applies the above topic areas of the sanction to her work with clients and how her practice has improved in view of these findings.

Ms Campbell's accreditation will be suspended pending the successful completion of the sanction, after which time Ms Campbell may apply to have her accreditation restored.

Following the Professional Conduct Hearing, Ms Campbell lodged an appeal under clause 6.5 (a) and (b) in that:

(a) the facts were found against the weight of evidence and;

(b) the sanction is disproportionate to the findings and decision of the Professional Conduct Panel and is unjust in all the circumstances.

The grounds of appeal were independently assessed in accordance with clause 6.2 of the Professional Conduct Procedure and the appeal was accepted to go forward to an appeal hearing on ground 6.5(a) in that the facts were found against the weight of evidence.

The Appeal Panel reviewed the findings of the Professional Conduct Panel, and made the following findings;

1. The Appeal Panel agreed with the findings and decision of the Professional Conduct Panel that Ms Campbell did not provide the Complainant with a good quality of care by failing to introduce herself at the start of the session. The Appeal Panel noted that Ms Campbell admitted in evidence that she did not do so; having assumed that the Complainant's husband had already given her the information. Therefore the Appeal Panel upheld this part of the allegation.

The Appeal Panel found that there was a conflict of evidence in that the Complainant stated that it was not made clear to her until approximately halfway through the session that she was in a couples counselling session, whereas Ms Campbell stated that she had referred to 'Couples Therapy' right at the start of the session. However, Ms Campbell conceded, in oral evidence before the Appeal Panel, that there was a blurring in moving from individual therapy with the Complainant's husband, to couples counselling. On balance, the Appeal Panel considered that it was Ms Campbell's responsibility to explain to the Complainant the type of therapy, which the Complainant was being offered. The Appeal Panel also considered that Ms Campbell should have given careful attention to contracting individually with the Complainant and re-contracting with her husband so that they understood clearly, the purpose of the session, particularly as the Complainant's husband had previously been an individual client. The Appeal Panel therefore also dismissed this part of the appeal for the reasons stated and upheld this part of the allegation. The Appeal Panel therefore agreed with the findings and decision of allegation 1 in its entirety.

2. The Appeal Panel did not find that Ms Campbell failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience. The Appeal Panel agreed with the findings and decision of the Professional Conduct Panel that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Ms Campbell expressed the opinion that the Complainant's medical side effects were the result of her treatment going wrong. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

The Appeal Panel agreed with the decision of the Professional Conduct Panel that Ms Campbell failed to give consideration to the limitation of her training and experience. It was accepted by both parties that Ms Campbell had made a suggestion to the Complainant and her husband that they massage each other at home. Ms Campbell stated that she did not specify the type of oil that the Complainant should use, however, the Complainant's evidence was accepted that baby oil was the type of oil she had understood to be recommended by Ms Campbell. Whilst the Appeal Panel was satisfied that Ms Campbell did not possess the required expertise, it did not consider that this amounted to Ms Campbell making a 'recommendation'. However, the Appeal Panel was satisfied that Ms Campbell made a 'suggestion' that the Complainant and her husband massage each other with oil and that this suggestion was made without any assessment of the potential negative effects that this could have on the Complainant's psoriasis. The Appeal Panel therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld this part of the allegation.

3. The Professional Conduct Panel found that there was insufficient evidence that Ms Campbell failed to be attentive to the quality of listening and respect offered to the Complainant and noted that there was evidence that the Complainant's medical conditions were discussed. The Appeal Panel agreed with the findings and decision of the Professional Conduct Panel in its entirety. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

4. The Appeal Panel agreed with the decision of the Professional Conduct Panel and made the following findings. The Appeal Panel heard oral evidence from Ms Campbell that she should have thought more carefully and had not checked enough that the Complainant fully understood the nature of the service she was being offered. So whilst there was a conflict of evidence in that the Complainant stated that it was not made clear to her until approximately halfway through the session that she was in a couples counselling session whereas Ms Campbell stated that she had referred to 'Couples Therapy' right at the start of the session, the Appeal Panel reiterated the reasons outlined in allegation 1 above, that it was Ms Campbell's responsibility to clarify the type of therapy which the Complainant was being given. Additionally, the Appeal Panel considered that Ms Campbell should have given careful attention to re-contracting with both the Complainant and her husband so that they understood clearly the purpose of the session, particularly as the Complainant's husband had previously to this session, been an individual client. The Appeal Panel therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld this allegation.

5. The Appeal Panel agreed with the Professional Conduct Panel's findings and decision regarding this allegation in their entirety. Further the Appeal Panel noted that Ms Campbell had accepted in evidence that at no point during the session did she seek the Complainant's explicit consent to participate in couples counselling and assumed that her attendance was evidence of the Complainant's implicit consent to participate. Ms Campbell also failed to obtain adequately informed consent from the Complainant and in failing to seek the Complainant's explicit consent, paid insufficient attention to the Complainant's autonomy. The Appeal Panel also noted that Ms Campbell had relied on the implicit consent of the Complainant, in that she presumed the Complainant's husband had told her that the session was, and assumed the Complainant had consented to couples therapy. The Appeal Panel found that Ms Campbell had failed to ensure that her services were delivered on the basis of the Complainant's explicit consent. The Appeal Panel therefore dismissed the appeal and this allegation is therefore upheld.

6. The Appeal Panel agreed with the Professional Conduct Panel's decision regarding this allegation. However, the Appeal Panel noted that there was an error concerning which paragraph of The Ethical Framework (2013) this allegation related to and confirmed that it was paragraph 12 and not 59, this is reflected in 7 below. The Appeal Panel also substituted the finding as follows: Ms Campbell in her evidence before the Professional Conduct Panel had stated that she had provided information about her services, including a contract, to the Complainant's husband when she saw him individually. Ms Campbell stated that following this individual session the Complainant's husband contacted her for couples counselling. Ms Campbell accepted that she did not provide any information to the Complainant about her services as she assumed that the Complainant's husband would share the contract that she had provided to him with the Complainant and explain the therapy that was being provided. The Appeal Panel found that whilst Ms Campbell may have talked generally in the session, it was not satisfied that Ms Campbell had adequately informed the Complainant of the service being offered sufficiently clearly to enable the Complainant to choose whether she wished to continue with the session or withdraw. Notwithstanding the error relating to the paragraph to which this allegation related, the Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal and the allegation is upheld.

7. In light of the above findings, the Appeal Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 2, 12 and 13 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the Ethical Principles of Autonomy, Being Trustworthy and Beneficence had been breached. It also found that Ms Campbell lacked the Personal Moral Qualities of Competence, Empathy, Respect and Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire. The Appeal Panel did not find that paragraphs 11, 59 had been breached. The Appeal Panel also considered that the Ethical Principle of Non Maleficence had not been breached. The Appeal Panel considered that in the circumstances, whilst Ms Campbell had been unwise to make the suggestion she did, as outlined in allegation 2 above, no actual physical harm was caused. The Appeal Panel considered that Ms Campbell was attempting to be 'solution focussed' and was not satisfied there was evidence of contravention of the Ethical Principle of non-maleficence.

Appeal Decision

Accordingly, the Appeal Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in that the services that Ms Campbell provided fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. In particular, the Panel found that Ms Campbell was incompetent and had provided inadequate professional services.

The Appeal Panel upheld the appeal in so far as it considered that the findings were not of sufficient severity that Ms Campbell was reckless, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.

Mitigation

Ms Campbell evidenced some modification to her practice in that she stated that she now has a written contract which clients are required to sign. Ms Campbell also demonstrated some evidence of beginning to reflect on her practice, specifically with regard to how she will manage a situation where individual counselling transitions to introducing another person. She also indicated that she would ensure explicit re-contacting in such circumstances.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Campbell is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflections on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, within 6 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Campbell is required to provide a detailed written report which covers the following areas:

- Incorporating the Ethical Principle of Autonomy in practice with client work and the importance of clear and appropriate contracting in relation to working with individual clients, couples counselling and any transition from individual to couples counselling

- The information that should be given to clients at the outset of the assessment session concerning the type of therapy that is being provided, the format of the therapy and the rights and responsibilities of Ms Campbell as a practitioner and of the client;

Within the report, Ms Campbell must give examples of how she deals with the above areas in her client work.

The above report should be countersigned, by an experienced supervisor to confirm that the matters referred to within the report have been discussed in supervision.

Ms Campbell is also required to provide copies of all written information, relating to both individual and couples work, that she gives to clients both before and during therapy.

These written submissions must be sent to the Registrar by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

Conclusion

In conclusion the Appeal Panel did allow the appeal in part, which is reflected in the decisions made and the sanction imposed.

back to top

May 2015: Carol Gordon, Reference No: 519410, Surrey CR0

The complaint against the above individual member/registrant was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the Complainant stated that she participated as a supervisee in a supervision group led by Ms Carol Gordon (also known as Jazz) whilst working as a trainee counsellor at the counselling organisation A, from September - December 2013. The Complainant stated that she felt supervision was going well and had voiced this to the placement directors prior to the final session on the 9 December 2013. The Complainant alleged that the final supervision session in December started in the normal manner, however although one member was absent due to 'running late', it was decided to commence as Ms Gordon wished to discuss something with the group.

The Complainant alleged that Ms Gordon said she was unhappy with the group and that she felt 'disrespected' by the group members, although the Complainant alleged that this quickly became more personal and that Ms Gordon stated that she felt disrespected by the Complainant, especially during the November session when the Complainant spoke over her when she had not finished speaking. The Complainant admitted that this did occur, but that she apologised when this was pointed out and that it was a 'complete accident'. The Complainant alleged that she reminded Ms Gordon that she had apologised during the November session, but that Ms Gordon stated she was unable to respond to this apology as she was ill.

The Complainant alleged that Ms Gordon continued to give further examples of how she had felt disrespected by the group in November 2013, in that when Ms Gordon had ended the group, the supervisees left the group without saying goodbye to her, but stood 'chatting' to each other in her hallway for '7 minutes'. The Complainant further alleged that Ms Gordon stated that she found some people domineering within the group and then further focussed this by stating 'actually [ complainant's name] I'm talking about you'. The Complainant alleged that when she asked Ms Gordon about why this was aimed at her, Ms Gordon replied that it was how she felt.

The Complainant stated that following this exchange she felt very victimised and felt that she was being attacked and got up, informed the group and Ms Gordon that she was leaving the group and left. The Complainant alleged that Ms Gordon said 'OK bye when the Complainant stated her intention to do this, but did not suggest talking the issues through within the group.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Ms Gordon allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met the Complainant's needs, in that she failed to be willing to resolve the issues with the Complainant, against the advice of her supervisor.

2. Ms Gordon allegedly failed to be attentive to the quality of respect offered to the Complainant and failed to communicate in a way which was courteous, in that she had an unprofessional encounter with the Complainant during group supervision.

3. Ms Gordon allegedly failed to maintain and enhance good practice and acquire the attitudes, skills and knowledge required by her in that role in that she adopted a challenging approach towards the Complainant in group supervision.

4. Ms Gordon allegedly failed to monitor and maintain her fitness to practise at a level which enabled her to provide an effective service, in that she allowed her work with the Complainant and the supervision group to affect her health.

5. Ms Gordon allegedly failed to remedy any harm she may have caused to the Complainant by issuing an apology, when she became aware that things had gone wrong.

6. Ms Gordon allegedly failed to ensure that her work did not become detrimental to her health or well-being and seek appropriate professional support in the form of supervision when she encountered difficulties with the Complainant.

7. Ms Gordon's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 8, 11, 34, 40, 42 and 64 the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice and Self-Respect of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect, Integrity, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing and confirmed in an email sent on 5 February 2015 that she would not be attending the hearing in Rugby and therefore, the matter was referred under paragraph 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure, which states:

Where a Complainant or Member Complained Against fails or refuses to attend a Professional Conduct Hearing, the Registrar has the power to decide to either:

a) Proceed with the Hearing in the absence of one or both of the parties; or

b) Adjourn the Hearing to a date not less than 28 days in advance; or

c) Terminate the proceedings; or

d) Refer the matter for consideration under Article 12.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The options were carefully considered, and in light of the circumstances, a decision was made to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Complainant.

It would have been of assistance to the Panel to have the benefit of questioning both parties in relation to their evidence to assist it in making a determination in respect of the findings. However, in the absence of the Complainant, the Panel had to base its decision on the written evidence provided by both parties and the verbal evidence of the Member Complained Against on the day.

Findings

On balance having fully considered the above the Panel made the following findings:

1. Ms Gordon ran a supervision group in which the Complainant was a participant. The Complainant joined a supervision group in September 2013, which had two participants from an original group. Ms Gordon initially found the Complainant a refreshing addition to the group. In October 2013, another person joined the group and Ms Gordon claimed that there was a substantial shift in group dynamic and she had concerns about the group and more in particular about the Complainant, which she took to clinical supervision on 7 November 2013. Ms Gordon stated that it was agreed that she would convey her observations to the group and challenge the Complainant within the group. Ms Gordon did not raise her issues with the supervision group at the November session and further experienced the session negatively. Ms Gordon took her issues to peer supervision on 12 November 2013. The next group supervision was scheduled to take place on 9 December 2013. Prior to it taking place, Ms Gordon gave two months' notice to the organisation contracting her services that she would be ending with the supervision group, and would see the supervisees on the 9 December 2013, with the last meeting to take place with the group on 6 January 2014. Ms Gordon, in reference to the issues she experienced with the group, communicated to the organisation that she had taken the issue to peer supervision and had "decided that it's not worth my time attempting to resolve this issue as I suspect any possible adherence of basic boundaries and respect will not be congruent anyway". Ms Gordon raised her issues with the group on 9 December 2013,and stated in her written evidence that the session "did not go well", with the Complainant leaving the session prematurely in a distressed state. One of the witness statements stated, "we did book the next session in hope of reconciliation........", and Ms Gordon in her evidence indicated that she would have aimed to achieve as much reconciliation as possible and would have done so in the next session, which would have been the final session. However, the final session never took place as the contracting organisation suspended any further sessions Ms Gordon may have had planned. On the balance of probabilities the Panel was not satisfied that it was proven that Ms Gordon had failed to be willing to resolve the issues with the Complainant. The Panel concluded that the allegation that Ms Gordon failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met the Complainant's needs, in that she failed to be willing to resolve the issues with the complainant, against the advice of her supervisor was not proven and the allegation is therefore not upheld.

2. On the 9 December 2013, Ms Gordon and the supervision group met for a session. One of the 4 supervisees was running late and not present when Ms Gordon informed the group that she had something to discuss with them. Whilst Ms Gordon had previously consulted with her individual and peer supervisor and her own CPD group about raising issues with the case supervision group and was advised by her supervisor of the type of reaction she might receive, Ms Gordon had not formulated a plan with her supervisors about how she would raise and manage her agenda with the group. Ms Gordon agreed with the group on the day that she would discuss her issues before dealing with client work, as one of the supervisees indicated that she would find it difficult to focus on client work wondering at what Ms Gordon might wish to share. Ms Gordon informed the group that she had handed in her notice to end her work with the group. Ms Gordon also informed the group of a number of concerns she had with the group.

Ms Gordon communicated to the group that she felt disrespected by the group and cited some examples of how she had felt disrespected. She informed the group of her concern about the group dynamic, also indicating to the group that she had experienced an element of disruptiveness in the group. As the conversation developed, the focus of Ms Gordon shifted from the group to the Complainant. Ms Gordon spoke to the Complainant about an issue that occurred in the November session, for which the Complainant had already apologised. One of the supervisees questioned Ms Gordon as to whether she had been experienced as domineering in the group. Ms Gordon responded by saying "well actually [name of Complainant] I'm referring to you." The Complainant became upset and indicated that she was going to leave and Ms Gordon responded by saying, "ok bye", which the Panel found to be dismissive towards the Complainant. Ms Gordon indicated in her evidence that she had intended for the issues she raised to be dealt with within the group. However, she had also thought it was likely that she would need to name the Complainant and decided that she did need to name the Complainant. Ms Gordon stated in her evidence that, "I am totally clear that I did not name [Complainant's name] as being the root of disruption in the group until after [another supervisee] began questioning whether she had been experienced as domineering in the group. Whilst there is evidence that Ms Gordon did not raise her voice, appear aggressive or use derogatory language, the Panel was satisfied that the communication with the Complainant was accusatory and failed to be courteous and respectful to the Complainant who was singled out by Ms Gordon in front of the group causing the Complainant to feel humiliation and upset. The Panel found that Ms Gordon had acted unfairly and unprofessionally in singling out the Complainant and in dealing with her in an accusatory manner in front of her peers. It was clear to the Panel from the evidence submitted that the session had become very uncomfortable and emotionally charged with the Complainant leaving the session in an upset and distraught state. The Panel found that Ms Gordon failed to be attentive to the quality of respect offered to the Complainant and failed to communicate in a way which was courteous, in that she had an unprofessional encounter with the Complainant during group supervision and therefore concluded that the allegation was upheld.

3. Whilst the Panel recognised challenge can occur legitimately in a respectful way in the therapeutic context, the Panel was not satisfied that the challenging approach adopted by Ms Gordon related to challenge in the therapeutic context or that it was appropriate. Ms Gordon admitted that she had "acted un-artfully at times" when working with the Complainant and that her intervention was "clumsy", but maintained that she never acted unprofessionally. The Panel was not satisfied that Ms Gordon had appropriately and competently managed the session with the Complainant on the 9 December 2013. The Panel found that Ms Gordon had adopted a challenging approach in confronting the Complainant in an accusatory manner in front of her peers and singling her out. The Panel was not satisfied that Ms Gordon's behaviour exhibited good practice in that it was not satisfied that her challenging approach towards the Complainant modelled the attitude, skills and knowledge required in her role. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel found that Ms Gordon had failed to maintain and enhance good practice and acquire the attitudes, skills and knowledge required by her in that role in that she adopted a challenging approach towards the Complainant in group supervision. The Panel therefore upheld this allegation.

4. On questioning, Ms Gordon denied this allegation and clarified with the Panel that she managed her self-care. The clarification was supported by her supervisor's statement.The Panel was not satisfied that it was proven that Ms Gordon failed to monitor and maintain her fitness to practise at a level which enabled her to provide an effective service, in that she allowed her work with the Complainant and the supervision group to affect her health. Therefore, this allegation was not upheld.

5. Whilst Ms Gordon did not accept that she had done anything wrong to the Complainant and did not believe that she had caused her any harm, Ms Gordon accepted that things did go wrong with the Complainant at the 9 December session and that the Complainant experienced the session negatively and left in a distraught state. Following that session, Ms Gordon did not provide the Complainant with an apology. The Panel was satisfied that Ms Gordon had confronted the Complainant and singled her out in the session, and that the Complainant left the session in a distraught state and that Ms Gordon was aware that the session did not go well. The Panel found on the evidence, that Ms Gordon failed to remedy any harm she may have caused to the Complainant by not issuing an apology when she became aware that things had gone wrong and therefore this allegation was upheld.

6. The Panel was satisfied on the evidence that Ms Gordon had consulted with her supervisor when she encountered difficulties with the Complainant and that she was attentive to her self-care. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Gordon failed to ensure that her work did not become detrimental to her health or well-being and seek appropriate professional support in the form of supervision when she encountered difficulties with the Complainant. Therefore, this allegation was not upheld.

7. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 11, 34, and 42 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013) had been breached but not paragraphs 1, 8, 40 and 64 nor the ethical principle of Self-Care. It also found a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire but did not find a lack of the moral quality of integrity.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice on the grounds of the provision of inadequate professional services and incompetence.

Mitigation

The Panel was not satisfied that there was evidence of mitigation.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection together with the educative aspect.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Gordon is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, in no less than three months and no more than six months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Ms Gordon is required to provide a detailed and comprehensive case study based on the issues that arose from this complaint related to the upheld findings. This case study should address her learning and pay particular attention to the following areas;

1. Communicating and managing feedback within a supervision group session,

2. Managing conflict in a group situation within a limited timeframe,

3. Attending to the needs of group members.

Ms Gordon is also required to describe, in-depth, how she might have done things differently with regard to this case.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

back to top

May 2015: Joseph Cullen, Reference No: 525916, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE15


The complaint against the above individual member/registrant was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel is that the Complainant was a trainee counsellor at organisation A, a counselling agency registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965-1978, where the Member Complained Against, Joseph Cullen, at that time was the Treasurer and a part of the management team.

The complainant was a trainee counsellor from September 2008 to December 2009, and while she remained at the organisation as a qualified counsellor from January 2010 to June 2010, Mr Cullen was her supervisor. Further from September 2010 to July 2011, Mr Cullen acted as her mentor when she registered on a teaching qualification course until July 2011. Mr Cullen was also simultaneously the complainant's work colleague within the agency from June 2009, when at his request she took on the role as volunteer fundraiser for the agency in return for a promise from him of paid employment in the future once the organisation was financially sustainable.

The focus of this complaint is the alleged unprofessional and unethical behaviour of Mr Cullen towards the complainant in his role as her supervisor, and to a lesser extent in his subsequent role as her mentor. Once the supervisory relationship was established, allegedly as a result of Mr Cullen's suggestion, the complainant alleged that Mr Cullen embarked on a series of initiatives designed primarily to keep her in the organisation in order to use her experience of fundraising in order to realise the vision and ambition he had for the organisation. In addition to his request that she become a volunteer fundraiser for the organisation with the prospect of permanent paid employment, the complainant alleged that Mr Cullen fostered a close personal relationship directly with her and also between members of their respective families. The complainant alleged that the supervision boundaries became increasingly blurred through, for example, Mr Cullen picking her up from home, driving her to the supervision location and then home again, with frequent stops for coffee, shopping, and visits to galleries, together with increasing socialising with her and between both of their families. Over time, the complainant alleges that Mr Cullen, while appearing to be supportive, fostered a deliberate dependence by her on him through what she refers to as his "power and control dynamic". He allegedly actively disregarded her welfare as a trainee counsellor through a "series of discouragements", including discouraging her from topping up her Foundation Degree to an Honours Degree, putting her off registering for a PhD, and inhibiting her from taking up a placement opportunity with Barnardos. The complainant alleged that Mr Cullen was able to gain information from her through the supervisory process about her lack of family support and present vulnerability and the abuse she experienced in childhood and then to misuse that information through inappropriate disclosure outside supervision to further his control over her.

The complainant summarises Mr Cullen's unethical behaviour as a supervisor by setting out his modus operandi in the following way:

- He would allegedly first target a volunteer or trainee counsellor and allocate himself as their supervisor

- He would provide 1 to 1 supervision free of charge.

- Using that relationship he would allegedly gather information on the supervisee in order both to use that supervisee to sustain his vision for the organisation and to meet his own emotional needs for his dynamic of power and control.

- Having assessed the individual's needs and vulnerabilities he would allegedly make them special with promises of roles and tasks within the agency.

- He would allegedly establish trust through emotional intimacy and support, only then to isolate that supervisee through a process of manipulating their thoughts and behaviours and discarding them if and when they became a threat, replacing them with new students from local colleges.

While the complainant suggested that this was his typical way of working, she alleged that all of it was experienced specifically by her throughout the duration of their supervisory relationship, which she describes as a process of "grooming", manipulation of vulnerabilities and the deliberate fostering of dependence upon him for malign ends. Thus she alleged he abused her trust by using his position of power to choose her clients without listening to her concerns; reinforcing his control by heightening her vulnerabilities; and undermining her own personal therapy.

The complainant stated that she eventually was able to end the supervisory relationship in June 2010, against Mr Cullen's wishes, following which she experienced lengthy "blanking" by him within the organisation as they continued to work together and a series of "passive aggressive behaviours". As Mr Cullen then moved from being her supervisor to becoming her mentor when she registered on a teaching course, she alleged that he proceeded to use the confidential information gained from her during supervision within the agency as their personal and professional relationship deteriorated, leaving her to feel "totally disrespected....and manipulated". She eventually dispensed altogether with his mentoring services in September 2011 until, after he made sexually explicit remarks to her, she gave in her notice in November 2011.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular are as follows:

1. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which meet her needs, in that he built up the complainant's dependence towards him by offering free supervision to gain her trust, to meet the needs of the organisation rather than the complainant's needs and would not allow the complainant to see the complaint which a client had made against her and instead offered to increase their Supervision sessions.

2. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that he did not enable the complainant to explore fully issues she was experiencing with her client work in supervision.

3. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that he suggested in supervision that the complainant had been sexually abused and entered into a discussion about her sexual self and drew the complainant into a discussion about her family life, which made her feel uncomfortable.

4. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that when the complainant wanted to discuss terminating their supervisory relationship, Mr Cullen would not enter into a meaningful discussion about it.

5. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both him as a practitioner and the complainant as a client, in that he did not make it clear to her the circumstances in which supervision could end and when the complainant broached the subject of terminating therapy, did not provide reviews or set out the supervision process or clarify the roles that he would be performing in relation to her.

6. Mr Cullen allegedly held a dual relationship with the complainant which was to her detriment, in that he was concurrently a supervisor, manager, colleague and friend and then subsequently mentor, manager, colleague and friend. Further Mr Cullen allegedly failed to consider the implications of these dual relationships.

7. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to keep appropriate records of his supervision and mentoring work with the complainant.

8. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to be attentive to the quality of listening and respect offered to the complainant in that he allegedly 'groomed' the complainant and used their supervisory/mentor relationship for his own needs and for the benefit of the organisation rather than the complainant's own needs. Further Mr Cullen allegedly did not listen to the complainant when she was explaining to him things that were going wrong in their relationship.

9. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to pay careful attention to client consent and confidentiality in that he used material gained from his supervisory relationship with the complainant in their working relationship as colleagues

10. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to respect the complainant's right to choose whether to continue or withdraw from supervision or mentoring, in that each time the complainant raised the issue of terminating supervision he acknowledged it but there would be no initiation of an ending process.

11. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to ensure that his services were delivered on the basis of the complainant's explicit consent in that he continued providing supervision to the complainant when she made him aware that she wished to cease supervision.

12. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to be willing to respond to the complainant's requests for information about the way in which he was working in that he would not permit the complainant to explore a complaint that had been made against her by the client with him in supervision.

13. Mr Cullen allegedly abused the complainant's trust in order to gain emotional and personal advantage in that he used his supervisory relationship with the complainant to develop a series of discouragements, including discouraging her from topping up a Foundation degree to an Honours degree, putting her off studying for a Ph.D. and inhibiting her from getting experience with Barnardos.

14. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that he paid frequent visits to the bistro run by the complainant's husband during the time the complainant was his supervisee/mentor and used information gained from his supervision sessions with the complainant within the organisation.

15. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to provide supervision/consultative support, i.e. mentoring to the complainant independent of any managerial relationships.

16. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the complainant's complaint when she raised concerns regarding their supervisory relationship.

17. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to ensure that his relationships were conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and attain good working relationships which enhance services, in that he sent an email to a colleague which referred to the complainant in a less than positive way.

18. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to treat all colleagues fairly and to foster equality of opportunity in that Mr Cullen exploited the complainant's ethnic background to gain connections for him and the organisation.

19. Mr Cullen allegedly failed to avoid the conflict of interest which developed between him and the complainant, in that he was initially her supervisor, manager, colleague and friend and then subsequently her mentor, manager, colleague and friend.

20. Mr Cullen's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant and identified in the paragraphs above suggests contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 33, 41, 51, 52 and 63 and of the ethical principles of being Trustworthy, Autonomy and Beneficence of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice (2008- 2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of sincerity, integrity, respect and fairness to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. In his oral evidence, Mr Cullen stated that all volunteer trainee counsellors at organisation A were offered free supervision. The Panel found that by offering free supervision, Mr Cullen did build up a dependency, however the Panel was satisfied that this was not a deliberate attempt to meet the organisation's needs rather than the Complainant's, although this may have been an unintentional consequence. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

Whilst there was a conflict of evidence as to whether or not there was a written complaint made against the Complainant by a client, there was, nevertheless a complaint. The Complainant was not shown the complaint but instead was offered extra supervision, and in this regard, the Panel found that Mr Cullen had failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which meet her needs. Therefore this part of the allegation is upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

2. In her oral evidence, the Complainant talked of bringing client work to supervision and in particular discussed one of her clients with Mr Cullen where he had suggested there may be a dynamic issue. There was no evidence brought to demonstrate that in general, the Complainant was not able to explore fully issues in her client work and therefore the Panel found that Mr Cullen did not fail to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in this regard and therefore this allegation not upheld.

3. Mr Cullen, in his oral evidence stated that he did not recognise the account of the conversation as evidenced in the Complainant's written and oral evidence. The Panel considered that there was a conflict of evidence about whether or not Mr Cullen suggested in supervision that the abuse the Complainant had suffered in childhood amounted to sexual abuse. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence brought to substantiate the allegation and therefore this allegation is not upheld.

4. In her oral evidence, the Complainant accepted that she had not formally broached the subject of terminating the supervisory relationship. Therefore this allegation is not upheld.

5. In oral evidence, when asked if he had clarified the rights and responsibilities in relation to the supervision relationship, Mr Cullen stated the Complainant would have been given the organisation A "Supervision Policy Sheet" which had been submitted as evidence. However, the Panel found that this sheet on its own was not sufficient as a clarification. When closely questioned, Mr Cullen's responses demonstrated that he was hazy about how and whether he had clarified the rights and responsibilities of himself as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client within their supervision sessions. Mr Cullen stated that he had carried out reviews whilst the Complainant was a student, but that he had not done so in the eighteen months or so after she was qualified. This allegation is therefore upheld.

6. Mr Cullen accepted, in both his written and oral evidence, that he had had multiple roles with the Complainant. These included being a family friend, a regular customer of the Complainant's husband's café, colleague, counsellor and supervisor. Mr Cullen also had a personal friendship with the Complainant, was her line manager in her capacity as volunteer counsellor and a mentor. When questioned by the Panel, Mr Cullen could not provide any evidence of having considered the implications of these dual relationships or the detrimental impact they might have on the Complainant, despite having said that he had discussed them in supervision. The Panel noted that Mr Cullen demonstrated a lack of reflection, both at the time and since the events occurred.This allegation is therefore upheld.

7. Mr Cullen gave contradictory evidence of his keeping of appropriate records, first stating that he had not kept records and then stating that he had done so whilst the Complainant was a student. In oral evidence, Mr Cullen stated that processes and systems had not always been in place. The Panel found that the contradictions indicated that his records, if kept, were not kept in an appropriate manner. Therefore this allegation is upheld.

8. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence brought to corroborate the allegation that Mr Cullen had 'groomed' the Complainant for his own interests or for the benefit of the organisation. In her evidence, the Complainant accepted that she did not tell Mr Cullen in a straightforward way, that things were going wrong in their relationship. This allegation is therefore, not upheld.

9. The Panel noted the emails that contained information Mr Cullen had gained from the supervision sessions with the Complainant and which he had sent to a mutual colleague, Ms D. Mr Cullen stated, in oral evidence that the emails had been taken 'out of context'; however he accepted that he had written them and stated that 'they looked bad'. The Panel found that, whilst Mr Cullen stated that the emails were only meant for Ms D's eyes, they did contain material taken from his confidential knowledge of the Complainant and as such should not have been passed to a third party. Therefore this allegation is upheld.

10. The Complainant stated in her oral evidence, that she had not directly raised the issue of terminating supervision within her supervisory sessions. Therefore the Panel did not uphold the allegation that Mr Cullen failed to respect the Complainant's right to choose whether to continue or withdraw from supervision or mentoring.

11. The Complainant stated in her oral evidence, that she had not directly raised the issue of terminating supervision within her supervisory sessions. Therefore the Panel did not uphold the allegation that Mr Cullen failed to ensure services were delivered on the basis of the Complainant's explicit consent.

12. The Panel noted that there was a conflict of evidence as to whether there had been a written complaint by a client, however, there was evidence of a complaint about the Complainant being late for a client, which she had not been allowed to fully explore in supervision. The Panel found that, whilst Mr Cullen had brought up complaints made against the Complainant in supervision, he had not given her full information about them. Therefore this allegation is upheld.

13. In written evidence, Mr Cullen had stated that the Complainant had pursued two courses which had been paid for by the organisation. Mr Cullen denied that he had discouraged the Complainant and on the contrary, stated that he would have supported the Complainant had she pursued a PhD. The Panel noted that there was a conflict of evidence as to whether Mr Cullen had discouraged the Complainant from pursuing a PhD and therefore the allegation that Mr Cullen abused the Complainant's trust is not upheld.

14. In both his written and oral evidence Mr Cullen accepted that he had frequently visited the Complainant 's husband's Bistro, and stated that this was 'to support them and because the food was good'. The Panel found that in so doing, Mr Cullen did not respect her privacy and confidentiality. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence brought to substantiate the allegation that Mr Cullen used information gained from supervision sessions within the Bistro. Therefore this part of the allegation is not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

15. Mr Cullen accepted in both his written and oral evidence that he had been in multiple relationships with the Complainant. However, when questioned he was not able to reflect on the possible detrimental issues that these multiple relationships may cause. The Panel found that his supervision and consultation was not independent from any managerial relationship. Therefore this allegation is upheld.

16. The Panel noted that there was no evidence brought to demonstrate that the Complainant had raised a complaint against Mr Cullen, prior to the allegations made to BACP; therefore this allegation is not upheld.

17. Mr Cullen accepted in both his written and oral evidence that he had sent an email to a colleague, which referred to the Complainant in a less that positive way. Mr Cullen stated that this email was purely for the recipient and was not intended to be seen by the Complainant. However, the Panel found that sending an email describing the Complainant in such unflattering terms to a mutual colleague was disrespectful and harmful to working relationships. Therefore this allegation is upheld.

18. The parties agreed that the Complainant had attended a meeting with an MP at Mr Cullen's request, however, there was insufficient evidence brought to substantiate the allegation that this was done to exploit the Complainant's ethnic background. Therefore this allegation is not upheld.

19. It was accepted by both parties that Mr Cullen sent cards to the Complainant and her family. In his oral evidence however, Mr Cullen did not accept that the multiple relationships he had with the Complainant created a conflict of interest. In her oral evidence, the Complainant stated that she was confused by the multiple relationships. The Panel also noted that the relationships had extended beyond her time at the organisation. The Panel found that Mr Cullen had failed to avoid a conflict of interest developing and indeed noted that Mr Cullen failed to acknowledge that a conflict of interest had developed. This allegation is upheld.

20. In light of the above, the Panel was satisfied that Mr Cullen's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant, and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 16, 20, 33, 51 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy and the Ethical Principles of Being Trustworthy and Autonomy. The Panel also found that Mr Cullen lacked the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Respect, and Fairness that practitioners are strongly urged to aspire.

The Panel did not find a contravention of paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 41 and 52 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy, and the Ethical Principle of Beneficence. Nor did the Panel find a lack of the personal moral quality of Sincerity.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in that the service for which Mr Cullen was responsible fell below the standards that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable skill. The Panel found that Mr Cullen was incompetent, reckless and provided inadequate professional services.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Mr Cullen is required to provide a written submission, which evidences his immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, in not less than 6 months and no more than 18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Mr Cullen is required to provide three separate, in-depth, case studies, which evidence the following:

1. The 'dual relationships' that he and the complainant were involved in over the years and demonstrate a profound understanding of the significance of these relationships and the possible harm that may be caused by them to this complainant in particular. Mr Cullen must also:


I. Support the case study with reference to the literature available about dual relationships;
II. present evidence that this has been discussed in supervision and;
III. The case study should be signed off by a supervisor who also evidences that he/she is a) outside of Mr Cullen's current network and b) evidence that he/she has not been and is not currently involved in any other relationship with Mr Cullen.

2. The understanding of the meaning of 'conflict of interest' and demonstrate a profound understanding of the significance of how a conflict of interest may arise within organisation A. Mr Cullen must also:


I. Support the case study with reference to the literature available about conflict of interests within a counselling arena;
II. present evidence that this has been discussed in supervision and;
III. The case study should be signed off by a supervisor who also evidences that he/she is a) outside of Mr. Cullen's current network and b) evidence that he/she has not been and is not currently involved in any other relationship with Mr. Cullen.

3. The importance of keeping consistent and clear records and the importance of being thorough and consistent in his record-keeping as above.


I. Support the case study with reference to the literature available
II. present evidence that this has been discussed in supervision and;
III. The case study should be signed off by a supervisor who also evidences that he/she is a) outside of Mr. Cullen's current network and b) evidence that he/she has not been and is not currently involved in any other relationship with Mr. Cullen.

Mr Cullen's accreditation is suspended until the sanctions above have been considered as satisfactorily completed by a Sanction Panel.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

back to top

May 2015: Christine Usher, Reference No: 573333, Bishop's Stortford CM23

The complaint against the above individual member/registrant was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that in September 2011, the complainant saw Ms Usher for family therapy, having found her leaflet at a doctor's surgery, and having been recommended to look for family therapy by a CBT therapist. The reason for needing therapy was that the complainant was feeling sad, in part due to being unable to breast-feed her baby, and was also experiencing problems in her relationship.

It was agreed that sessions should take place at 2pm on Saturdays. The complainant states that whilst this suited her partner, she found it difficult to find childcare. The complainant alleged that this issue was discussed in therapy but that Ms Usher did not appear to consider this a problem. The complainant therefore attended only three sessions, the last one on her own. During therapy, Ms Usher allegedly assured the complainant that she was not depressed, but the complainant stated that this made her more confused and ashamed about her feelings and she felt unable to communicate, and carried on hoping to feel differently.

The complainant stated that her partner continued to see Ms Usher on a Saturday. The complainant alleged that during his therapy, her partner changed from loving the complainant to distrusting and hating her. The complainant became increasingly overwhelmed, lonely and resentful as she needed her partner's help and support and this was made worse by his being out of the house on Saturdays. On one occasion the complainant stated that she insisted that her partner take the baby to therapy with him, so that the complainant could take her older child to a party. When she picked up Mr P later, from therapy, he refused to get in the car with her.

In February 2012, the complainant decided to make changes to her life, in particular, giving up smoking. As she had allegedly been told by both Ms Usher and her mother-in-law that she was not depressed, she was put on Chamonix. (Ms Usher had allegedly told the complainant that the complainant felt threatened by her mother in law). The complainant stated that she became depressed and suicidal and the medication was changed. Around this time, the complainant's partner allegedly began to insult and humiliate her, and also to video-record her.

Ultimately, in March 2012, the couple split up, allegedly in part because Ms Usher encouraged the complainant's partner to decide whether or not to leave the family home. The separation was very acrimonious and there was a court case. The complainant was aware that her partner had had therapy before and was anxious that he may be susceptible to the influence of his therapist. She therefore, rang Ms Usher to ask what kind of therapy her partner was having, but Ms Usher allegedly told her to, "ask him yourself" and put the phone down.

On 25 May 2012, Ms Usher wrote an "expert witness" statement on behalf of the complainant's now ex-partner. The statement referred to the sessions held with the complainant and discussed what she had said within the sessions, and Ms Usher's opinion of what was said by the complainant.

The complainant stated that this report was in the end not used in court, however, alleged that the writing of this report was a breach of her confidentiality, and that all the information given about her was untrue. Specifically, the complainant denied that she had suggested to Ms Usher that her partner had a mental illness.

The complainant alleged that Ms Usher had not listened to anything that she said, that her written evidence is distorted, and that Ms Usher teamed up with her partner to bully the complainant.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Ms Usher allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs, in that she suggested that the complainant was not depressed, when she was not qualified to make such a comment.

2. Ms Usher allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in that she did not appreciate or take into consideration how the difficulties that the complainant had regarding child care would affect her attending the sessions.

3. Ms Usher allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered services which met her needs in that she prepared a report which was to be disclosed to third parties, in which she referred to the complainant and information obtained from the therapy sessions without her knowledge or consent.

4. Ms Usher allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience and work within these limits in that she told the complainant that she was not suffering from post-natal depression when she was not qualified to make such an assessment and prepared a report in relation to the complainant and her partner in which she gave opinions about the mental state of the complainant's partner which she was not qualified to provide.

5. Ms Usher allegedly failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience and work within these limits in that she prepared a report in relation to the complainant and her partner in which she made statements and gave opinions which she was not qualified to make.

6. Ms Usher allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of her as a practitioner and the complainant as a client in that she did not make it clear to the complainant that she would be preparing a report relating to her and submitting it to third parties or that she would be making assessments in relation to whether or not the complainant was depressed.

7. Ms Usher allegedly failed to ensure that the complainant was adequately informed about the nature of the services being offered to her and obtain adequately informed consent from the complainant in that she did not inform the complainant that she would be preparing a report in relation to matters which she and her partner had discussed in therapy and disclosing it to third parties and did not seek the complainant's consent to refer to her or what she had discussed in therapy within the report.

8. Ms Usher allegedly failed to pay careful attention to client consent and dignity in that she prepared a report which referred to the complainant which could be used in court, without seeking the complainant's consent.

9. Ms Usher allegedly failed to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that she referred to matters, which the complainant had disclosed to her in therapy, in a report which was to be submitted to third parties, without seeking the complainant's consent.

10. Ms Usher allegedly failed to ensure that she was accountable to the complainant for the management of confidentiality in that she disclosed information in a report relating to the complainant without her consent.

11. Ms Usher allegedly failed to ensure that she clarify the terms on which her services were being offered in that she did not make it clear to the complainant the limitations of confidentiality or that she would be submitting a report which referred to the complainant or matters she had disclosed in therapy.

12. Ms Usher allegedly failed to take particular care over the integrity of presenting her qualifications and professional standing in that she gave opinions in relation to the mental state of the complainant and her partner, within therapy, and within her report, which she was not qualified to make.

13. Ms Usher allegedly failed to foresee or avoid the conflict of interest which could arise in agreeing to see the complainant's partner as an individual when she had previously seen both the complainant and her partner as a couple.

14. Ms Usher's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant and identified in the paragraphs above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, 24, 59, 61 and 63 and of the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence and Justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Integrity, Respect, Competence, Wisdom, Fairness and Humility to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. There was a sharp conflict in the oral evidence presented by both parties. The Complainant in her evidence stated that she told Ms Usher that she had been assessed and diagnosed as suffering from Post Natal Depression (PND), but that Ms Usher had dismissed this diagnosis and stated that the Complainant did not have PND. Ms Usher denied this and stated that she would never be dismissive of a diagnosis of a mental health illness and would work with whatever issues the client presented, including depression. Ms Usher stated that she was not qualified to make a medical diagnosis. The Panel noted that there were communication issues between the Complainant and Ms Usher in view of the language barrier and agreed that it was likely that this led to misunderstandings between the parties. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, the Panel accepted the evidence of Ms Usher and did not find that Ms Usher failed to provide a good quality of care and competently delivered services in suggesting that the Complainant was not depressed when she was not qualified to do so. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

2. The Complainant in her evidence accepted that she and her former partner had agreed the time that the session would take place. Whilst both parties accepted that the Complainant described the difficulties that she had with child care, the Complainant accepted in her evidence that she did not make a request to Ms Usher to change the timing of the session. On questioning both parties, there was no evidence of any other option for an appointment time other than a Saturday afternoon. The Complainant stated that her former partner worked Monday to Friday and Ms Usher stated that she did not offer evening appointments and had already been flexible in agreeing to see the Complainant and her former partner on a Saturday afternoon. Further, the Complainant stated that she had hoped that she would be able to make child care arrangements so that she could attend the session on a Saturday afternoon, but she had been unable to do so. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Usher failed to provide a good quality of care and competently delivered services in not taking into account how the difficulties that the Complainant had in arranging child care would affect her attending the sessions. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

3. Ms Usher accepted in both her written and oral evidence that she did not have the Complainant's consent to refer to her within the report she submitted on behalf of the Complainant's former partner. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care and competently delivered service which met her needs in preparing a report that she disclosed to third parties, which referred to the Complainant and information obtained during her therapy sessions with the Complainant, without her knowledge or consent. This allegation is therefore upheld.

4. The Panel accepted Ms Usher's evidence that she did not tell the Complainant that she was not suffering from post-natal depression, as referred to in allegation 1. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Usher failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience and work within these limits in relation to this part of the allegation. The first part of this allegation is therefore not upheld.

With regard to the second part of the allegation, Ms Usher accepted that whilst she did have experience of working within the mental health arena, she did not have any medical qualifications which would enable her to provide any diagnoses. In preparing a report in which Ms Usher gave opinions regarding the mental state of the Complainant's former partner which she was not qualified to provide, the Panel found that Ms Usher failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and work within these limits. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

5. Ms Usher accepted that she prepared a report in relation to the Complainant and her former partner in which she made statements and gave opinions which she was not qualified to make. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to give careful consideration to the limitations of her training and experience and work within these limits. This allegation is therefore upheld.

6. The Complainant in her evidence stated that she was unaware of the existence of the report that Ms Usher had prepared until her solicitor informed her. Ms Usher accepted that did not make the Complainant aware that she would be preparing a report in relation to her and submitting it to third parties. In relation to this part of the allegation, the Panel found that Ms Usher failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of her as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client. This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

The Panel accepted that Ms Usher did not make any assessments in relation to whether or not the Complainant was depressed and therefore could not fail to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities with the Complainant in this regard. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

7. Ms Usher in her evidence stated that whilst she sought consent from the Complainant's former partner to prepare the report, she did not seek consent from the Complainant. Further, the Complainant stated that she was unaware of the existence of the report until her solicitors brought it to her attention. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to ensure that the Complainant was adequately informed about the nature of the services being offered to her and obtain adequately informed consent from the Complainant to prepare a report detailing what was discussed in therapy and disclose it to third parties. This allegation is therefore upheld.

8. Ms Usher accepted that she prepared a report in which she referred to the Complainant and submitted it to the solicitors of the Complainant's former partner for use in court proceedings, without the Complainant's consent. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to pay careful attention to client consent and dignity in this regard. This allegation is therefore upheld.

9. Ms Usher accepted that within the report she prepared for the Complainant's former partner, she referred to matters that the Complainant had discussed with her in the session which she attended alone and did not seek the Complainant's consent to do so. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and dignity in this regard. This allegation is therefore upheld.

10. The Panel found that in preparing a report, which referred to the contents of the Complainant's session without her consent, Ms Usher failed to ensure that she was accountable to the Complainant for the management of confidentiality. This allegation is therefore upheld.

11. Both parties accepted in evidence that the issue of confidentiality was discussed during the initial assessment session as part of the verbal contract, but the Complainant denied that she was informed of the limitations of confidentiality and the circumstances in which this could be breached. Further, Ms Usher accepted in her evidence that given the language barrier, she should have revisited the matters discussed in the verbal contract in subsequent sessions to ensure that the Complainant understood. Ms Usher accepted that she did not make the Complainant aware that she would be submitting a report which referred to the Complainant and the matters she discussed in therapy. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to clarify the terms on which her services were being offered in not making it clear the limitations of confidentiality. This allegation is therefore upheld.

12. Ms Usher accepted in evidence that she did not have any medical qualifications which would enable her to offer any diagnoses and further accepted that this was the first time that she had prepared a report in this manner. The Panel noted the expert's declaration section of the report in which Ms Usher claimed to be an expert, when she was not. Ms Usher stated in evidence that the report was a template she used to insert the content of her report. Whilst the Panel accepted that Ms Usher did not offer opinions in relation to the mental state of the Complainant, the Panel found that in preparing a report in which Ms Usher gave opinions relating to the mental health of the Complainant's former partner which was to be submitted for use in court proceedings, Ms Usher failed to take particular care over the integrity of presenting her qualifications and professional standing. This allegation is therefore upheld in part.

13. Ms Usher stated in her oral and written evidence that during the time that she was counselling the Complainant and her former partner, there were issues in her personal life which were parallel to the issues the Complainant and her former partner were going through. Ms Usher stated that on reflection she felt protective of the Complainant's former partner and his plight and saw her role as his protector and experienced a level of transference. Ms Usher stated that this served to cloud her judgment and in hindsight she should have taken some time off work to deal with her personal issues. Ms Usher accepted that it was a conflict of interest to agree to see the Complainant's former partner individually when she had been counselling him and the Complainant as a couple. The Panel therefore found that Ms Usher failed to foresee or avoid the conflict of interest which could arise, and as such this allegation is upheld.

14. In light of the above findings the Panel was satisfied that there was a contravention of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, 24, 59, 61 and 63 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence and Non-maleficence and Justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013). The Panel also found that Ms Usher showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Integrity, Respect, Competence, Fairness, Humility and Wisdom to which all counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Panel was not satisfied that Ms Usher showed a lack of the personal moral quality of Empathy.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in that the service which Ms Usher provided fell below the standard which would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable skill and care, in that she was incompetent and reckless.

Mitigation

Ms Usher made a full and frank admission and acknowledged her failings. Ms Usher states that she now ensures that she provides her clients with a written contract as opposed to a verbal contract and has changed her supervisor, which has given her the opportunity to reflect on the transference that occurred in this case. Further, Ms Usher stated that it was now her practice never to see one half of a couple as an individual.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Ms Usher is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In no less than six months and no more than 12 months, Ms Usher is required to undertake training on working with couples from different cultural backgrounds of one day's duration and must provide documentary evidence of her attendance on the course within the same time frame.

In addition, at the same time as submitting evidence of her attendance on the above course, Ms Usher is required to provide a written report reflecting on what she learned on the training course and how this has influenced her practice. Further Ms Usher is required to demonstrate how she uses supervision and has changed or made improvements to her practise in respect of the following areas:

  • Working with clients cross culturally where there are language barriers;
  • Maintaining boundaries within the therapeutic relationship;
  • Monitoring and maintaining her self-care;
  • Foreseeing and avoiding conflicts of interests;
  • Managing confidentiality within a therapeutic setting.

The above report must be countersigned by Ms Usher's supervisor, who must confirm that the above matters have been discussed in supervision.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

back to top

May 2015: Valerie Collins, Reference No: 574652, Derbyshire DE56


The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the Complainant met with Ms Collins for an individual counselling session in August 2013, which was arranged prior to a joint counselling session with Ms Collins together with his ex-wife, from whom he was separated. The joint session took place on 9 September 2013.

The complainant stated that his ex-wife had been seeing Ms Collins for individual counselling, and Ms Collins had allegedly offered to see the two together as an alternative to them attending Relate. Since his then wife had already had sessions for individual counselling with Ms Collins, the Complainant alleged that Ms Collins was already biased in his ex-wife's favour and could not be neutral. He alleged that Ms Collins and his ex-wife demonstrated a friendliness that excluded him. He alleged that he had to be insistent in putting across what he wished to say and that Ms Collins gave preference to his wife's agenda and that she and his ex-wife at times had verbal exchanges when he was talking. He alleged that Ms Collins stated that she saw no point in him going over unresolved issues even though they were still relevant to him. He alleged that she blamed him for not moving on. When he became upset he alleged that Ms Collins said he was being aggressive, and made a connection to him at work, even though she allegedly knew nothing of that aspect of his life. The Complainant alleged that he tried to leave the session early and that he was bullied into staying. He alleged that he twice intimated that he felt suicidal at the end of the session, and that Ms Collins made no attempt to respond to this, and did not follow up after the session to check how he was, yet allegedly suggested to his ex-wife that she should keep in touch with her. The Complainant alleged that he experienced the session as abusive and that it exposed him to psychological harm. The Complainant alleged that Ms Collins knew from his one-to-one session with her that he was psychologically vulnerable. He alleged that he sent a text to Ms Collins early on the day following the joint session, and that she did not respond to it, and that she did not respond to him until he lodged his complaint with BACP, which she sent to his workplace email.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Ms Collins allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in that she offered to provide joint counselling to the Complainant and his ex-wife, in place of Relate, when she had already provided individual counselling to the Complainant's ex-wife.

2. Ms Collins allegedly failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in that she failed to ensure that the joint session was equal and balanced given that she already had a pre-existing counselling relationship with the Complainant's ex-wife.

3. Ms Collins allegedly failed to ensure that she was attentive to the quality of listening and respect offered to the Complainant in that, during the joint session, she did not allow the Complainant to fully discuss certain issues that he wished to raise, talked over him and engaged in discussions with the Complainant's ex-wife whilst he was talking.

4. Ms Collins allegedly failed to ensure that she obtained adequately informed consent from the Complainant and respect his right to choose whether to continue or withdraw, in that she placed pressure on the Complainant to continue with the joint session when he stated that he wanted to leave.

5. Ms Collins allegedly failed to be alert to the possibility of conflicting responsibilities concerning the Complainant and his ex-wife and provide the Complainant with a good quality of care, in that when he expressed suicidal ideations at the conclusion of the session, Ms Collins failed to ensure that the Complainant was in a sufficiently safe state to leave the session, failed to make a referral to his GP or other professional and failed to follow up with the Complainant following the session to check whether he still posed a risk of harm to himself.

6. Ms Collins allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that she sent an email to the Complainant at what she believed was his work address, when it was in fact not, when the Complainant had only provided his personal email address to Ms Collins for her to contact him.

7. Ms Collins allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the Complainant's complaint when she received it, in that she did not sufficiently address the issues raised in his email.

8. Ms Collins allegedly failed to endeavour to remedy the harm that she had caused the Complainant in not issuing an apology.

9. Ms Collins allegedly failed to foresee and avoid the conflict of interest which could arise from her providing joint counselling to the Complainant and his ex-wife and providing individual sessions to the Complainant's ex-wife.

10. Ms Collins alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 14, 20, 41, 42 and 63 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non Maleficence and justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect, Competence, Fairness and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

The Complainant was not in attendance and confirmed in an email sent on 7 February 2015 that he would not be attending this hearing and therefore, the matter was referred under paragraph 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure, which states:

Where a Complainant or Member Complained Against fails or refuses to attend a Professional Conduct Hearing, the Registrar has the power to decide to either:

a) Proceed with the Hearing in the absence of one or both of the parties; or

b) Adjourn the Hearing to a date not less than 28 days in advance; or

c) Terminate the proceedings; or

d) Refer the matter for consideration under Article 12.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The options were carefully considered, and in light of the circumstances, a decision was made to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Complainant.

The Panel would have liked the opportunity to question the Complainant in relation to his complaint and the allegations but in the absence of the Complainant, it was able to question the Member Complained Against and examine the written evidence.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. Ms Collins in her evidence denied that she had offered joint counselling in place of Relate to the Complainant and his ex-wife. Ms Collins stated that it was the Complainant's ex-wife who had made the suggestion of joint counselling and Ms Collins agreed to provide this if the Complainant was also in agreement. Ms Collins stated that the Complainant subsequently contacted her and they arranged an individual session, followed by a joint session. Ms Collins accepted that she had seen the Complainant's ex-wife for three individual sessions prior to seeing the Complainant and his ex-wife for a single joint session. Ms Collins in her evidence stated that the Complainant's ex-wife had told her that she did not want to go to Relate as she had no wish to reconcile with the Complainant. The Panel accepted that Ms Collins did not offer to provide joint counselling in place of Relate as the Complainant's ex-wife had never agreed to attend Relate. The Panel therefore found that Ms Collins did not fail to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in offering to provide joint counselling to the Complainant and his ex-wife in place of Relate, when she had already provided individual counselling to the Complainant's ex-wife. This allegation is not upheld.

2. Ms Collins in her evidence stated that she had discussed with the Complainant and his ex-wife in their individual sessions what their agenda for the joint session was and restated this agenda at the commencement of the joint session. Ms Collins in her oral evidence said that she had also set the boundaries and made it clear that one person was to talk while the other listened and they agreed who would talk first. Ms Collins stated that she did her utmost to ensure that the session was equal and balanced but neither the Complainant nor his ex-wife followed the agenda which they had agreed. As the Complainant was not in attendance to be questioned in more detail regarding this allegation, on the balance of probabilities, the Panel accepted the evidence of Ms Collins and did not find that she failed to provide a good quality of care in failing to ensure that the joint session was equal and balanced given her pre-existing relationship with the Complainant's ex-wife. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

3. Ms Collins stated that she discussed in advance with the Complainant and his ex-wife in their individual sessions, what their agenda for the joint session was and reiterated this again at the commencement of the joint session. Ms Collins stated the Complainant was at times angry and on those occasions she intervened to calm him down. The Panel agreed that it was reasonable to have intervened in these circumstances. Ms Collins also accepted that she encouraged the Complainant to move on when his ex-wife could not or would not answer his questions. The Panel agreed that in the circumstances, it was reasonable to have made this suggestion. Ms Collins stated that the Complainant and his ex-wife each had an opportunity to speak during the session and the Complainant spoke for the larger part of the session. In the absence of any oral evidence from the Complainant, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms Collins was not attentive to the quality of listening and respect owed to the Complainant and talked over the Complainant and engaged in discussions with the Complainant's ex-wife whilst he was talking. Further, the Panel accepted Ms Collins evidence that on the occasions when she did intervene, it was reasonable for her to have done so for the reasons stated above. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

4. Whilst Ms Collins accepted that she suggested that the Complainant stay when he said that he wanted to leave the joint session, she denied that she pressured him to stay. Ms Collins in her evidence stated that when the Complainant indicated that he wanted to leave, he was upset and angry and she was concerned that he was not in a sufficiently safe state to leave. Ms Collins said that whilst she could not recall exactly what she had said to the Complainant, she did not force him to stay, but merely suggested it, and the Complainant then chose to stay. In the absence of being able to question the Complainant further in relation to this allegation, the Panel accepted Ms Collins evidence and was not satisfied that she failed to ensure that she obtained adequately informed consent and respect the Complainant's right to choose whether to continue or withdraw in pressuring him to continue with the joint session. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

5. Ms Collins in her evidence said that she had carried out an assessment of the Complainant in his individual session where he stated that he had had suicidal thoughts for the past 6 months but had no intention of acting on these thoughts. During this session Ms Collins said that the Complainant also told her that he was under the care of his GP. Ms Collins said that by the end of the joint session the Complainant seemed calmer than he had been and when she asked him how he was, he stated that he was about the same as he was the last time. Ms Collins said that she took this to mean that he still had no plans to act on the thoughts that he had been having for the past 6 months and did not take this to mean that he was having suicidal ideations. Ms Collins stated that she saw no evidence that the Complainant was at risk of harming himself and there was nothing to suggest that the thoughts that he was experiencing were any more prevalent than they were when she spoke to him during his individual session. Ms Collins stated said if there had been evidence of an imminent risk she would have contacted the Complainant's GP with his consent or suggested that he do so. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Collins failed to be alert to the possibility of conflicting responsibilities and failed to provide the Complainant with a good quality of care in failing to ensure that he was in a sufficiently safe state to leave the session and failing to make a referral to the Complainant's GP or other professional and failed to follow up with him after the session. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

6. Ms Collins said that during the individual session she took the Complainant's contact details which included his temporary address and telephone number. Ms Collins stated that the Complainant emailed her from his work email address in January. Ms Collins said that she initially emailed the Complainant on his personal email address but when that bounced back, she emailed him using what she thought was the work email address he had provided her. Ms Collins stated that the Complainant did not state that he did not want her to respond to his work email address, and the Panel found that given that the Complainant's email address was the email he had sent to Ms Collins, it was reasonable for her to use it. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Collins failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality in emailing the Complainant in what she believed to be his work email address. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

7. Ms Collins in her evidence stated that she was unclear about how she should respond to the Complainant's complaint and therefore sought guidance from BACP, her insurers and her supervisor where she received conflicting advice. Ms Collins stated that the Complainant in his email to her said that he did not want her to respond to him and she was also aware from his email that he had already submitted a complaint to BACP. As such Ms Collins stated that she responded to say that it was not appropriate for her to enter into a discussion with the Complainant given that he had initiated a complaint to the BACP. Given the circumstances, the Panel found that Ms Collins responded in the most appropriate way that she could to the complaint. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Collins failed to respond appropriately to the complaint in failing to sufficiently address the issues raised, for the reasons stated above. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

8. There was written evidence that Ms Collins did apologise to the Complainant for the experience that he had and suggested that as he had initiated a complaint to BACP that this would be a better forum within which to resolve his issues. The Panel therefore did not find that Ms Collins failed to endeavour to remedy the harm that she caused to the Complainant in not issuing an apology. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

9. On questioning, Ms Collins stated that she did not believe that there was a conflict of interest in her seeing the Complainant's ex-wife for three individual sessions and seeing the Complainant and his ex-wife for a joint session. Ms Collins stated that it was her intention to provide a one off joint session to enable the Complainant and his ex-wife to discuss the matters that they wished to go through. The Panel found that Ms Collins already had a pre-existing relationship with the Complainant's ex-wife as she had provided her with three individual sessions of therapy, and whilst the focus of these sessions was not about her relationship with the Complainant, the Complainant was discussed during these sessions. As such the Panel found that the Ms Collins already knew information about the Complainant through his ex-wife. Further, Ms Collins knew more about the Complainant's ex-wife than she did about the Complainant by virtue of the individual sessions she had with the Complainant's ex-wife. The Panel found that Ms Collins failed to foresee that this could create a conflict of interest and did not discuss with her supervisor the wisdom of providing a one off joint session, particularly as she was aware the Complainant's ex-wife did not wish to reconcile. The Panel found that it was unlikely that a one off session would have given the Complainant and his ex-wife sufficient time to discuss all the issues which they wanted to discuss, given that Ms Collins accepted that each of them wanted to focus on different areas. Although the Panel accepted Ms Collins' evidence that she did not see the Complainant's ex-wife again, it did hear evidence that the Complainant's ex-wife did contact Ms Collins some time after the joint session had ended. The Panel therefore found that Ms Collins failed to foresee and avoid the conflict of interest which could arise from her providing joint counselling to the Complainant and his ex-wife and also providing individual counselling to his ex-wife. This allegation is therefore upheld.

10. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that Ms Collins' behaviour suggests a contravention in particular of paragraph 63 of
the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2013 and the ethical principles of Autonomy and Beneficence, and also showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of competence and fairness.

The Panel was not satisfied that paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 14, 20, 41 and 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and
Psychotherapy 2013, nor the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Non-Maleficence and Justice had been breached nor did the Panel find a lack of the personal moral qualities of Empathy, Respect and Fairness.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice on the grounds of incompetence and the provision of inadequate professional services in that the service for which Ms Collins provided fell below the standard that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Ms Collins said in her oral evidence that she had taken on additional supervision as a result of this complaint, had engaged in therapy, suspended couples work and attended CPD courses.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms Collins is required to provide a written submission, which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, Ms Collins is required to provide a written report demonstrating her in-depth learning and understanding about how a conflict of interest could arise when working with couples, how she would define a conflict of interest, identify a conflict of interest, develop strategies for avoiding where possible, and otherwise manage and resolve that conflict, providing examples where possible from her practice. This report should be countersigned by Ms Collins' current supervisor who should confirm that the contents of the report have been discussed in supervision. This report is required to be submitted in no less than two months and no more than six months from the date of imposition of this sanction.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

back to top

May 2015: Raymond Stevens, Reference No: 521492, Kent TN14

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the Complainant was referred to Mr Stevens by his GP around January 2012. The first sessions were in the GP surgery and they then moved to the Complainant's home. The Complainant and Mr Stevens met every couple of weeks for approximately two years.

On 22 November 2013 the Complainant stated that he overheard a phone conversation between his mother and his sister-in-law in which his mother allegedly said that she had met with Mr Stevens and discussed the Complainant with him.

On 24 November 2013 the Complainant stated that he checked his mother's cell phone and discovered that there were 15 logged calls from Mr Steven's cell to his mother and 34 calls from his mother to Mr Stevens.

The Complainant allegedly challenged Mr Stevens saying that he knew that Mr Stevens had discussed him with his mother but Mr Stevens denied that he had done so.

On Monday 25 November the Complainant sent Mr Stevens several messages asking for a further explanation but Mr Stevens had refrained from replying.

The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting a contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Mr Stevens allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both himself as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client in that some of the sessions took place at the GP's surgery and then moved to the Complainant's house. The Complainant was not made aware of the
nature of the services that were being provided to him at his house.

2. Mr Stevens allegedly failed to have respect for the Complainant's privacy and dignity in that Mr Stevens talked to the Complainant's mother about the Complainant, without his consent.

3. Mr Stevens allegedly did not ensure that the Complainant was adequately informed about the nature of the services being offered to him and that adequate consent was obtained from him in that Mr Stevens did not inform the Complainant of the nature of the services that were being provided to him at his home.

4. Mr Stevens was allegedly not clear about his commitment to being available to the Complainant in that some of the sessions took place at the GP surgery and other sessions took place at the Complainant's home and the Complainant was unclear about the nature of the services being provided to him.

5. Mr Stevens allegedly failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that Mr Stevens discussed the Complainant with his mother, without the consent of the Complainant.

6. Mr Stevens allegedly failed to ensure that he endeavoured to remedy the harm that he may have caused to the Complainant when he became aware that the Complainant had concerns regarding the service he provided.

7. Mr Stevens allegedly failed to notify the Complainant of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure when the Complainant notified him of his concerns.

8. Mr Stevens alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant and as identified in the numbered paragraphs referred to above, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 3, 11, 12, 19, 20, 42 and 46 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy and Autonomy of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Wisdom and Sincerity to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

1. Both parties agreed that the Complainant had at least three counselling sessions at the GP surgery, before the sessions moved to the Complainant's mother's house. There was disagreement between the parties as to the nature of the services that were being provided to the Complainant at his mother's house. The Complainant believed that the sessions at his mother's house were a continuation of the counselling sessions he had received from Mr Stevens at the GP practice and Mr Stevens stated that he was providing friendly support to the Complainant, as he was aware that that the Complainant was isolated in this country. There was further disagreement between the parties as to how the sessions at the Complainant's mother's house arose. Mr Stevens stated that the Complainant had received his allotted sessions at the surgery but had failed to turn up for a session, so he went to the Complainant's house and offered to come and see him every few weeks so they could talk. The Complainant stated that the suggestion to move the sessions to his home was made during the counselling sessions at the GP's surgery. Mr Stevens accepted in his evidence that he did not explicitly tell the Complainant that he was not providing counselling services to him at his home. The Panel found that it was the responsibility of Mr Stevens to be clear about the services that he was providing for the Complainant at home and given that there was disagreement as to what those services were, the service provided was unclear and the parties were at cross purposes. As such, the Panel found that Mr Stevens failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of him as a practitioner and the Complainant as a client in failing to making it clear the purpose of the sessions at the Complainant' mother's home and in having some of the sessions take place at the GP surgery and then moving them to his house. This allegation is therefore upheld.

2. Mr Stevens denied that he had discussed the Complainant with the Complainant's mother. The Complainant stated that he had overheard a telephone conversation between his mother and a member of his family and based on parts of the conversation he heard, he concluded that Mr Stevens had breached his confidentiality. The Complainant was unable to say what Mr Stevens had said to breach his confidentiality. The Panel therefore found that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Stevens had failed to have respect for the Complainant's privacy and dignity and discussed the Complainant with his mother without the Complainant's consent. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

3. Based upon the evidence given by both parties, the Panel found that there was a lack of clarity as to the nature of services that Mr Stevens believed he was providing and what the Complainant believed he was receiving. The Complainant stated that the services being provided to him at home were an extension of the counselling sessions Mr Stevens provided at the GP's surgery and Mr Stevens stated that he was providing the Complainant with friendly support and helping him to find a job. The Panel accepted the Complainant's evidence that the services being provided to him at his home were an extension of the counselling sessions and took note of the professional reference which Mr Stevens had provided for the Complainant wherein he referred to the fact that the Complainant was a patient and had been referred to him for counselling and psychotherapy, signing the letter indicating that he was a member of BACP and providing his BACP membership number. Mr Stevens accepted that he may have been "over-egging the cake" in providing such a letter. The Panel found that, as the parties were at cross purposes as to the nature of the services being offered, the Complainant could not consent to the service which Mr Stevens stated that he was providing, which he stated was friendly support and helping the Complainant to find a job. This allegation is therefore upheld.

4. The parties accepted that there were at least three sessions that took place at the GP's surgery and all of the remaining sessions took place at the Complainant's mother's house. The parties agreed these sessions were held regularly over two years, apart from a period when the Complainant was abroad, and confirms Mr Stevens' commitment to him. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld. Although Mr Stevens was clear in his own mind that the meetings at the house were to support rather than to offer counselling, the Panel accepted that the Complainant believed he was being offered counselling. Since the nature of the service offered to the Complainant was unclear, this part of the allegation is therefore upheld.

For the reasons stated above, this allegation is upheld in part.

5. Mr Stevens denied that he had discussed the Complainant with the Complainant's mother. The Complainant stated that he suspected that his confidentiality was breached based upon a telephone conversation he heard his mother having with a member of the family. The Complainant was however unable to tell the Panel what Mr Stevens had said to breach his confidentiality. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Stevens failed to respect the Complainant's privacy and confidentiality in discussing the Complainant with his mother. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

6. Mr Stevens in his evidence accepted that he did not respond in as much detail to the text message the Complainant sent expressing his dissatisfaction as he should have. He explained that he was concerned that he would make an already toxic situation between the Complainant and his mother worse. The Panel found that Mr Stevens had a responsibility to the Complainant and did not offer to meet the Complainant to discuss his concerns or take sufficient steps to mitigate any harm to him. The Panel therefore found that Mr Stevens failed to ensure that he endeavoured to remedy the harm that he may have caused to the Complainant. This allegation is therefore upheld.

7. Mr Stevens in his evidence stated that when the Complainant visited him at the GP surgery he told him that he was a member of BACP. Mr Stevens stated that he was aware from the text messages sent by the Complainant expressing his dissatisfaction that he was aware of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure and as such, he did not need to notify him of its existence. The Panel found that whilst Mr Stevens did not notify the Complainant of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure, it was clear from the Complainant's text messages that the Complainant was already aware of its existence. Given that the Complainant was already aware of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure, the Panel did not find that Mr Stevens failed to notify him of its existence. This allegation is therefore not upheld.

8. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that Mr Stevens' behaviour showed a contravention of paragraphs 3, 12, 19 and 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) and the ethical principle of Autonomy. It also found that Mr Stevens lacked the personal moral quality of Wisdom to which all practitioners are strongly urged to aspire.

The Panel did not find a contravention of paragraphs 11, 20 and 46 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013 edition) or the ethical principle of Being Trustworthy and nor did it find a lack of the personal moral quality of Sincerity.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice in the provision of inadequate professional services, in that the services for which Mr Stevens provided fell below the standards that reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

Mr Stevens accepted that he realised too late the dilemma that he was in by seeing both the Complainant and his mother and accepted that in hindsight, his boundaries with the Complainant were unclear. Mr Stevens stated that he acted out of a wish to help the Complainant and apologised to the Complainant.

Sanction

One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The Panel, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Stevens is required to provide a written submission, which evidences his immediate reflections on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.

In addition, Mr Stevens is required to provide a written report in which he deals with the following:

- The difference between a counselling relationship and a supportive relationship and how he would make it clear to the person receiving the service what service he was providing;

- The importance of client consent in ensuring that the client is adequately informed about the nature of the services being provided and how he would ensure that he obtained such consent.

- How he would set and maintain boundaries with clients and agree the rights and responsibilities of him as a practitioner, including what those rights and responsibilities are and how he would ensure that the client understood this.

- How, in the event that something goes wrong, he would ensure that he remedied the harm to the client.

The above report is to be submitted no later than three months from the date of imposition of this sanction.

These written submissions must be sent to the Interim Registrar, by the given deadlines, and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

 back to top

June 2014: Kerry North, Reference No: 585063, Doncaster DN7

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that the complainant began individual counselling with Miss North in May 2011 and continued on a regular basis, (usually weekly) until 6 November 2012.

The complainant alleges that he felt a strong connection with Miss North from an early stage in the counselling relationship, which felt more like a friendship than a counselling relationship, in part due to their alleged informal discussions around spirituality, her alleged self- disclosure about her life and her informal approach.

The complainant alleges that on 13 June 2012, Miss North sent him a series of unsolicited texts of a personal nature. The complainant was aware that this breached ethical boundaries and felt that their relationship had moved to one of friendship. The complainant alleges that as the relationship developed he felt more loved and wanted than he had ever previously felt in his life.

During the period between 13 June 2012 and the last session in November 2012, the complainant alleges that each session ended with a hug and during this period the complainant alleges that the venue of the meetings moved to his home, with the agreement of his wife, or on occasion the home of Miss North. The complainant alleges that he paid extra for their sessions to reflect the additional travel time and petrol costs, as Miss North was allegedly experiencing financial difficulties. The complainant also alleges that during this latter period, text messaging became a feature of their relationship, in which a fun rapport developed, and subsequently the complainant alleges that he was able to declare his love for Miss North, which was allegedly reciprocated by text by Miss North.

Towards the end of their relationship in November 2012, the complainant alleges that Miss North started to withdraw from the friendship and steer the relationship back to a more professional stance. The complainant alleges that he challenged this change in focus and was left devastated when the sessions ended on 6 November 2012, in an unplanned manner. The complainant alleges Miss North offered to refer him on but that he did not want to start the process over again.

Following the last session, the complainant alleges that he wrote a number of letters to Miss North to ask for an explanation of her behaviour, which culminated in a further two and half hour meeting at her home on 15 March 2013, in which Miss North allegedly offered the complainant the opportunity to revisit her after a few months.

Following the meeting on 15 March 2013, the complainant alleges that later on the same day and again the following day, Miss North texted him with an opportunity to work together in a spiritual group with one of her friends. The complainant alleges that he was pleased by this response and contacted her friend. The complainant alleges that Miss North was displeased by his contact with her friend and disengaged from her original suggestion.

Following this period of counselling the complainant alleges that he was left feeling rejected, taken advantage of, used and discarded.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows:

1. Ms North allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care in that she abruptly terminated therapy, leaving the complainant feeling unsafe.

2. Ms North allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and maintain appropriate boundaries in the counselling relationship by engaging in extensive out of session text and telephone contact and contacting the complainant, in distress and seeking his guidance, causing the complainant to believe that she had feelings for him and that he was special.

3. Ms North allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care in that she failed to manage appropriately or at all, the
issue of transference/counter-transference when the complainant declared his love for her and instead allegedly confirmed via text that his love for her was reciprocated and then allegedly subsequently told the complainant that she was projecting her feelings for her ex-husband onto him.

4. Ms North allegedly failed to clarify and agree the rights and responsibilities of both her and the complainant in that she allegedly:

a) did not make the complainant aware of the circumstances in which therapy would end;

b) was not clear where therapy would take place, some of the sessions occurring at Ms North's house and others at the complainant's;

c) failed to be clear about what charge would be made for these sessions, resulting in the complainant paying over and above the agreed rate on occasion;

d) did not carry out any reviews in relation to the progress the complainant was making with regard to the therapy;

e) did not discuss the issue of confidentiality and the circumstances in which information relating to him would be disclosed.

5. Ms North allegedly entered into a dual relationship with the complainant as a friend and counsellor through engaging in regular out of session text messages and telephone calls, sharing personal details, inviting the complainant to form a spiritual group with her, referring to the complainant as "big bro" in her text messages, concluding her text messages with an x, denoting a kiss, and through allegedly meeting the complainant regularly on a social basis.

6. Ms North allegedly failed to honour the trust of the complainant by discussing him with others, thereby failing to respect his privacy and confidentiality.

7. Ms North allegedly failed to respond to the complainant's request for information, in that she did not respond to his request for access to his notes and the details of her supervisor.

8. Ms North allegedly abused the complainant's trust in order to gain emotional and financial advantage by; hugging him at the end of sessions, suggesting that they set up a spiritual group, taking money from the complainant which was not in respect of the counselling work they were doing and entering into a personal relationship with the complainant, which led him to feel loved and subsequently misled emotionally when the relationship ended.

9. Ms North allegedly did not exercise caution before entering into a personal relationship with the complainant.

10. Ms North allegedly failed to maintain her fitness to practise in that she contacted the complainant in distress and spent some of the counselling sessions discussing her own personal issues.

11. Ms North allegedly failed to notify the complainant of the existence of the Professional Conduct Procedure when she became aware that he was dissatisfied with the counselling.

12. Ms North was allegedly not honest, straightforward and accountable to the complainant in respect of all financial matters, in that she allegedly took money from the complainant for a meeting which was in the guise of a counselling session, accepted money which was for her personal benefit and not in respect of counselling, and accepted additional money for the therapy sessions over and above the usual fee.

13. Ms North allegedly failed to ensure that the way that she undertook her work was as safe as possible and that she sought professional support when needed, in that she allegedly contacted the complainant in distress and used the therapy sessions and their social meetings to discuss her own personal problems.

14. Ms North's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 11, 16, 17, 40, 46, 62 and 64 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Justice of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013), and showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Sincerity, Integrity, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Findings

On balance having fully considered the above the Panel made the following findings:-

1. The Panel found on the basis of the evidence that Miss North did not provide the complainant with a good quality of care in that she abruptly terminated therapy in or about 11 November 2012 following an incident where the complainant had hugged and kissed her at the end of the session. Miss North, in her verbal evidence to the Panel said that she had been shocked by the incident and had made an excuse, telling the complainant that she would not be able to continue the counselling sessions at his home, stating that she did not want to drive in the dark and had family demands. The Panel therefore found that Miss North had left the session abruptly and that this abrupt exit had left the complainant feeling unsafe.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

2. Miss North accepted that she exchanged frequent text messages with the complainant, had telephone contact with him and contacted the complainant when she was in a distressed condition seeking his guidance. The Panel further found that as a result of this contact the complainant believed that Miss North had feelings for him and that he was special. On the basis of this evidence the Panel found that Miss North had failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care and maintain appropriate boundaries.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

3. The Panel found that on the basis of the evidence Miss North had failed to manage the issue of transference/counter transference in that following text messages and emails from the complainant where he declared his love for her, Miss North confirmed by text to the complainant that his love for her was reciprocated. The Panel found that this amounted to a failure to provide a good quality of care in that Miss North had failed to maintain appropriate boundaries in the counselling relationship.

The Panel further found that Miss North had told the complainant, in a phonecall on 13 November 2012, that she had projected her feelings about her ex-husband onto the complainant.

The allegation is therefore upheld.

4. The Panel made the following findings.

a) It was conceded in evidence by the complainant that he was told at the commencement of the counselling contract of the circumstances in
which counselling would come to an end. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

b) It was conceded by the complainant that some sessions took place at Miss North's home and others at the complainant's home. The
complainant conceded that he was content with this arrangement. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

c) The Panel found that there was agreement between Miss North and the complainant that payment had been discussed and made clear and that Miss North had accepted additional payment for sessions from the complainant. The complainant stated that he had been happy to pay over and above the agreed rate on occasion to help Miss North who he knew to be in strained financial circumstances. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

d) The Panel further found that on the basis of the evidence reviews were carried out by Miss North regarding the progress the complainant was making with therapy. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

e) The Panel found, having heard the evidence, that Miss North did discuss issues of confidentiality, and the circumstances in which information relating to him would be disclosed with the complainant at the beginning of their counselling relationship. This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld.

In view of the above findings, this allegation is not upheld.

5. The Panel found that Miss North did enter into a dual relationship with the complainant as a counsellor and a friend through engaging in regular out of session texting, phonecalls and emails and the sharing of personal details. This dual relationship was evidenced by the text and email communications that passed between the complainant and Miss North outside counselling sessions where she referred to the complainant as "big bro" and ended texts with an x denoting a kiss. Miss North admitted in her written evidence that she had a social relationship with the complainant and that she had used him as a support friend when distressed. In addition the Panel found that in her written and verbal evidence Miss North admitted that she had invited the complainant to form a spiritual group with her.

The allegation is therefore upheld.

6. The Panel found that Miss North did discuss the complainant in supervision and that this was normal practice, and accepted that Miss North did not disclose his name. The Panel therefore found that Miss North had not failed to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality. The Panel further found that Miss North did not discuss the complainant with any other person. The Panel found that it was the complainant himself who had spoken to Miss North's friend [ . . . ] to introduce himself to her.

This allegation is therefore not upheld.

7. Following Miss North's admission that she had not sent the complainant his records or the details of her supervisor as requested by him, the Panel did accept her evidence that she had not done so as she had taken advice and had been told that she was not obliged to do so.

The Panel were however concerned that Miss North had not sufficiently taken into account her responsibilities and her client's rights under the data protection legislation.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

8. The Panel found that Miss North by entering into a dual relationship and by accepting money for sessions which focussed on her issues rather than on the complainant's needs did gain emotional and financial advantage. The Panel found that Miss North hugged the complainant at the end of counselling sessions and entered into a personal relationship with him which led him to feel special.

The Panel found that Miss North suggested setting up a spiritual group in March 2013 in an attempt to temporarily provide support for the complainant. The Panel found that this was more for Miss North's immediate benefit than the complainant's.

The Panel found that there was no evidence to suggest that Miss North had imposed any boundaries upon the counselling relationship and that in fostering a personal relationship had emotionally misled the complainant to believe he was loved.

The allegation is therefore upheld.

9. The Panel found that Miss North had phoned the complainant in distress in June 2012 when her personal life was in crisis and that this contact led the complainant to believe that she was seeking his help as a friend. The Panel found that this contact indicated the start of the personal relationship between Miss North and the complainant and that by phoning the complainant under such circumstances evidenced that Miss North did not exercise caution before entering into a personal relationship with the complainant.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

10. The Panel found on the basis of the evidence that Miss North had contacted the complainant in distress following an argument with her partner in or about June 2012 and that time had been spent in counselling sessions discussing her personal issues rather than those of the complainant.As such the Panel found that Miss North had failed to monitor and maintain her fitness to practise.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

11. The Panel found that Miss North did notify the complainant in June 2012 of the Professional Conduct Procedures. The complainant in evidence stated that he could not remember whether this had occurred or not.

The Panel accepted the evidence given by the Member Complained Against and as such this allegation is therefore not upheld.

12. The Panel found, on the basis of Miss North's written and verbal evidence that monies were paid by the complainant to Miss North which were not in payment of counselling sessions for the complainant but which were for her own personal benefit and that she had accepted money in addition to the normal counselling fee. Therefore the Panel found that Miss North was not honest, straight forward and accountable to the complainant in respect of all financial matters.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

13. The Panel found that Miss North had contacted the complainant in distress, had used his therapy sessions and social meetings for her
personal problems and that she had failed to seek professional support for these issues. Miss North admitted in evidence to the Panel that she had had regular supervision but that she had not used it appropriately because she believed her supervisor was stressed. Miss North admitted that she had undertaken the supervision knowing it was inadequate and did not meet her needs in respect of her work with the complainant and that she had failed to ensure that the work she undertook with the complainant was safe.

This allegation is therefore upheld.

In the light of the above findings the Panel was satisfied that there was a contravention of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 40, 62 and 64 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013).

The Panel found that there was no breach of paragraphs 11 and 46 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013).

The Panel found that the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy, Beneficence and Non-maleficence had been breached. The Panel found that the ethical principles of Autonomy and Justice contained in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2013) had not been breached.

Further the Panel found that Miss North showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of Sincerity, Integrity, Humility, Competence and Wisdom to which counsellors are strongly encouraged to aspire.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Miss North's practice fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. In particular, she provided the complainant with an inadequate professional service and further demonstrated incompetence and recklessness.

Mitigation

The Panel considered in mitigation the fact that Miss North had apologised unreservedly both through her barrister at the hearing and also personally to the complainant.

The Panel also took into consideration that Miss North had taken no new private clients from Christmas 2012 and had undergone a brief 2 hour training on boundaries.

The Panel further took into consideration the fact that Miss North was having personal therapy and in the light of the matters forming these
allegations she had changed her supervisor.

The Panel also took account of her statement that she recognised the breaches as being serious and had sought assistance from the Panel during the hearing as to how she could remedy those breaches.

The Panel also took account of Miss North's declaration that she would not work again in private practice without undertaking a substantial amount of further training.

The Panel also took cognisance of the testimonials that had been filed with the other documentation for the purposes of the hearing.

Sanction

The Panel decided on the following sanctions:

  • Within one month from the date of the imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline and in the
    event of an appeal on exhaustion of the appeals process. Miss North is required to provide a written submission of no less than 2000 words, which evidences her immediate reflection on, learning from and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.
  • Within 12 months from the date of the imposition of this sanction, Miss North is required to attend training courses covering the topics listed below, each course of 6 hours duration and provide evidence of completion of same:-
  • The principles, practicalities and ethics of working in private practice.
  • The maintenance of boundaries and their importance in counselling relationships.
  • Transference, counter-transference and erotic transference in counselling relationships

Miss North will be required to demonstrate her learning from the above trainings in a written submission of no less than 2000 words. This submission to be made within 3 months of the completion of the training.

These written submissions must be sent to the Deputy Registrar and Deputy Director of BACP Registers by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

(Where ellipses [...] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)