bacp : professional conduct

|

Subscribe to the Professional Conduct Department RSS Feed

Hearing Findings, Decision & Sanction

December 2011: Teresa Webb, Reference No: 514620, London N16

The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure, subsequently followed by an Appeal Hearing.

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010, and considered 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 Ms Webb's alleged poor practice, as described by her (group) supervisor, the complainant.

The complainant's concerns regarding Ms Webb's work began around July 2008.  In July, Ms Webb (and person X) had allegedly helped a student to decorate her flat.  While Ms Webb was not herself counselling this student, her colleague in the same College was providing counselling.  The complainant was concerned that it raised issues of working in teams, confidentiality, professional boundaries, and safety issues.

The complainant allegedly raised these concerns with Ms Webb, and they agreed on a CPD plan, which would have involved Ms Webb taking time out of counselling, and focusing on the advice work part of her job.

By July 2009, the complainant felt satisfied that, in the main, Ms Webb had met her CPD plan.  However, in November 2009 when Ms Webb presented a new client in supervision, she had allegedly forgotten the client's name.  In addition, whilst the client had disclosed that she ‘sees things', Ms Webb had allegedly not asked in the initial/preliminary session whether the client had any mental health issues or psychiatric history or input, had not obtained the GP details or obtained permission to write to the GP, although this had allegedly been the focus of previous issues in supervision.

The complainant allegedly raised concerns about Ms Webb's fitness to practise, and also that she should work within her limits of competence.  He also suggested that one of Ms Webb's colleagues should take the client.

In December 2009, Ms Webb presented another client who was self-harming, and who had referred to previous sexual abuse.  In supervision, it allegedly became clear that there was an immediate possibility of abuse.  The complainant alleged that Ms Webb had not followed college protocols by informing the College Child Protection Officer (CPO), nor had she sought advice from the CPO, from the complainant, nor from her colleagues.  The complainant alleged that Ms Webb was working out of her depth and should have sought help and advice.

In June 2010, Ms Webb allegedly could not or would not disclose distressing client information in supervision, and allegedly said that she had not "even told her husband".  When challenged by the complainant, she allegedly explained that she sometimes told her husband in the context of her own feelings, and that she was clear that this was a reasonable thing to do. Ms Webb allegedly took this issue to her manager, who directed her to stop counselling immediately, which she allegedly did.

At a meeting on 13 July 2010, Ms Webb allegedly told the complainant that she was not going to re-accredit with BACP and that this was agreed between them.  However, in September, Ms Webb allegedly told the complainant via e-mail that she had changed her mind and had applied for and gained her re-accreditation.

In summary, the complainant has alleged that Ms Webb becomes over-involved with students, consequently blurs and breaks boundaries, her risk assessment, decision-making and the management of confidentiality becomes impaired and that self reflection on the process becomes more difficult.

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:

• Ms Webb allegedly did not follow her employer's protocols or take advantage of appropriate professional support when dealing with a client who was self-harming and when there may have been an immediate possibility of abuse.
• Ms Webb was allegedly working outside of her levels of competence with some of her clients.
• Ms Webb allegedly did not review or monitor her work in a manner that maintained good practice, nor was she open to and conscientious in considering feedback from her supervisor.
• Ms Webb allegedly broke client confidentiality by discussing clients with her husband.
• In discussing any client material with her husband, Ms Webb allegedly did not demonstrate the qualities of wisdom, integrity or resilience.
• Ms Webb allegedly applied for re-accreditation knowing that her supervisor did not support her application, which allegedly shows a lack of the personal moral qualities of sincerity, integrity, humility, respect or wisdom.

Findings

 

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

• Ms Webb admitted in her written response that she lacked clarity regarding her employer's procedures on child protection and that she failed to follow them when dealing with a client who was self-harming and where there may have been an immediate possibility of abuse.

• The Panel found that there was evidence of Ms Webb working outside her levels of competence by completing and sending off a Social Services information form on behalf of a client which led to inappropriate identification of the client.  Ms Webb admitted that this was a mistake in that she had failed to check the procedure with the College Child Protection Officer with a resultant breach in client confidentiality.

• Ms Webb admitted that she had failed to enquire and record details of a client's GP when there was a significant indication that the client may have had mental health issues in that the client claimed that her pre-verbal child was "seeing things".  Ms Webb failed to see that the child may have been at risk and this fell below the standards expected of an experienced counsellor.

 

• The Panel found that whilst Ms Webb did review her work in supervision, she failed to do so in a manner which ensured good practice and she admitted to being resistant to the feedback she received from her supervisor about her practice.

 

• Ms Webb admitted that she was opposed to some of the improvements to procedures and protocols agreed in the supervision group and in particular to the decision to only allow counselling casework and not advice work to be brought to the group.

 

• The Panel found that whilst Ms Webb admitted to very rarely sharing issues relating to her counselling work with her husband, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that client material had been discussed which would identify a client

 

• The Panel found that in the particular circumstances of this case there was insufficient evidence that the sharing of issues related to Ms Webb's counselling work in itself amounted to a breach in confidentiality and thus did not find a lack of the qualities of wisdom, integrity or resilience.

 

• The Panel found that there was no evidence to suggest that Ms Webb's application for re-accreditation failed to conform to BACP's current re-accreditation criteria.

 

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 Ms Webb failed to provide a standard of professional service that could reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Sanction

Ms Webb's BACP Accredited status will be lapsed with immediate effect.  Once the sanction has been satisfactorily completed, Ms Webb may apply for reinstatement of her Accreditation.

Within one month from the date of the imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms Webb is required to provide a written submission which evidences her immediate reflection on, and understanding of the issues raised in this complaint in respect of the importance of appropriate boundary keeping, risk assessment, and the need to follow agreed procedures in counselling and supervision.

Additionally, in no less than six months and no more than twelve months from the date of imposition of the sanction, Ms Webb is required to provide a further written report which evidences the following:

• Positive changes she has made to her counselling practice as a result of the complaint.
• Her effective use of supervision to address and improve her practice in respect of issues raised by the complaint.
• Number of hours of supervision.
• Her understanding and learning about good practice in relation to boundary keeping and conforming to agreed service procedures.

This report must be countersigned by Ms Webb's supervisor. 

All reports must be sent to the Head of Professional Conduct and will be considered by an independently constituted Sanction Panel.

Appeal

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

• the sanction is disproportionate to the findings and decision of the Professional Conduct Panel and is unjust in all the circumstances

The Appellant contended that the list of allegations upheld did not amount to professional malpractice sufficiently serious as to warrant lapsing of accreditation, and that the effects of this would be overly punitive.

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 6.5b) in that the sanction was disproportionate to the findings & decision of the Professional Conduct Panel and is unjust in all the circumstances.

The purpose of the Appeal Panel was to consider the appeal in light of ground 6.5(b), and examine all the written and oral evidence presented by both parties to decide whether the appeal should be upheld, or not, which included

• a) the Appellant's reasons as to why the appeal should be allowed; and
  
  
• b) the Complainant's reasons as to why the appeal should be denied.

The Appeal Panel reviewed the findings of the Professional Conduct Panel, including those findings relating to failures in Ms Webb's practice admitted by Ms Webb in her response to the complaint.

 

Decision

After careful deliberation, the Appeal Panel decided that the sanction imposed by the Professional Conduct Panel was appropriate and proportionate to the findings it had reached on the evidence before it.  Further, the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the factors presented in Ms Webb's appeal documents, and at the Appeal Hearing, mitigated the seriousness of the failings in her practice.  The Appeal Panel was also not satisfied that the Appellant had sufficiently grasped the level of seriousness of those failings, nor did she satisfy the Panel that she had understood the dimensions of her own individual professional responsibilities. 

The Appeal Panel did not accept that the sanction imposed by the Professional Conduct Panel was disproportionate to its decision and findings, nor was it in any sense unfair or unjust.  Further, the Appeal Panel did not consider that the lapsing of Ms Webb's accreditation would be a bar to her practicing as a counsellor or being able to fulfil the sanction.

In conclusion the Appeal Panel did not allow the appeal and therefore the sanction remains as imposed.

  

December 2011: Family Matters, Reference No: 101424, Gravesend DA11 0PA

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 Family Matters allegedly did not deal appropriately with a complaint made by the complainant, as required by the Ethical Framework.

In November 2009, the complainant allegedly complained to Family Matters that her counselling psychologist had behaved inappropriately.  She allegedly put her complaint into writing, but alleges that Family Matters say that they never received it.  However, Family Matters was allegedly aware that a complaint had been made, and had offered some times to discuss the matter.  The complainant alleges that she was too ill to attend these meetings. 

On 25 February, Family Matters sent the complainant a letter stating that she had not attended one appointment and that a Family Matters employee could not travel to her for another appointment, as the employee had other appointments and the date for the appointment was incorrect.  Family Matters also stated as far as it was concerned the matter of the original complaint raised back in November and never substantiated was now closed.

An advocacy service working on the complainant's behalf contacted Family Matters by letter dated 23 March 2010, asking for another appointment to discuss the matter of the complaint, and further asking for a copy of Family Matters Complaints Procedures prior to a meeting being arranged.  Family Matters wrote back by letter dated 25 March 2010, confirming that the matter had been dealt with thoroughly through the Family Matters policies and procedures and that it was now closed.

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:

• Family Matters allegedly did not respond promptly and appropriately to the complainant's complaint.

• Family Matters allegedly did not endeavour to remedy any harm it (Family Matters) may have caused to the complainant in this matter.

Findings

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

• The Panel was satisfied that Family Matters did respond promptly to the complainant, which is demonstrated by the action it took to suspend the counselling psychologist immediately.  This aspect of the first allegation was not upheld.

• The Panel found that Family Matters did not deal appropriately with the complainant's complaint and this part of the first allegation was upheld in that:

• A letter dated 22 December 2009 was sent to the complainant at the wrong address.

• Throughout, Family Matters was adamant that there was a deadline of 28 days from the date that the complaint was made verbally, for submission of a formal complaint and yet, communications between Family Matters and the complainant and other people on her behalf, by correspondence and telephone, outside of that deadline indicated that the matter was still pending. The complainant was not formally notified by letter or telephone by Family Matters of when her time to submit a complaint expired, with the result that there was confusion about the exact deadline and whether Family Matters were allowing the complainant any latitude. This issue was exacerbated by Family Matters' administrative errors.

• Family Matters' paperwork shows that it was disorganised and muddled in its application of the Complaints Procedure that was in place at the time the incidents about which the complainant complained, occurred.

• Family Matters refused to accede to the complainant's request that it liaise with her support worker regarding the complaint and allow the support worker to speak on the complainant's behalf.

• On the balance of probabilities, given that the complainant and her advocate persisted in their request for a copy of the complaints procedure, it is likely that Family Matters did not send its complaints procedure to the complainant. There is evidence that requests were made for a copy of the complaints procedure by the complainant, and on her behalf, by telephone on 21 April 2010, and by letters dated 23 March and 27 April 2010.

• Some of the letters sent to the complainant, and in particular the letters from the Clinical Director dated 13 November 2009 and 25 February 2010, were abrupt, and in light of the complainant's history, inappropriate.

• Family Matters responded negatively to requests for a meeting near to where the complainant lived, the requests being made due to her physical ill health. The complainant had understood that the purpose of such a meeting would have been for her to talk about the substance of her complaint. The inflexibility in accommodating the complainant's needs was not in keeping with the outreach counselling service Family Matters operated and which had enabled the complainant's therapy to take place within a reasonable travelling distance from her home.

• When the complainant sought assistance from an advocacy service to help her overcome the impasse, Family Matters response on 25 March 2010 to the advocacy service's request on 23 March 2010 for an alternative appointment and more convenient venue was negative and peremptory. The advocacy service's request for a copy of Family Matters' complaints procedure was ignored.

• The advocacy service again wrote to Family Matters on 27 April 2010 in response to the letter of 25 March 2010. The content of the letter indicated that the complainant did not consider she had had an opportunity to voice her views and concerns and again requested a copy of the complaints procedure and a clear explanation of how the enquiry into the complaint had been conducted and its outcome, and pointed out that the allegations were serious. Family Matters replied on 29 April 2010, stating that the case was closed. Further, it failed to address any of the issues that the advocacy service had raised and a copy of the complaints procedure was not enclosed.

• In relation to the second allegation detailed by the PHAP, Family Matters' rigid application of the timetable for the complaints process, blocked the complainant's opportunity to pursue her complaint to completion and to achieve a resolution and closure. Even with the advent of the advocacy service, Family Matters did not take steps to avail itself of the further opportunity to attempt to resolve and bring closure to the complaint, which was to the complainant's detriment.

Decision

Accordingly the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Family Matters failed to provide the complainant with adequate professional services.

Mitigation

Family Matters acknowledged that the way in which the complaint was handled, was flawed and that the complaint had not been dealt with in a fair and appropriate fashion.  Solicitors gave an apology on behalf of Family Matters, in a letter via BACP, dated 24 January 2011 and the apology to the complainant was reiterated verbally to her at the hearing.

Since the complaint was received, Family Matters have reviewed its complaints policy, appointed a complaints officer and a new office manager with experience as a practice manager, with responsibility for customer care. 

The Panel noted the challenge faced by Family Matters in providing a comprehensive service within the limitations of its resources.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Family Matters is required to provide in writing, its in depth reflections and learning from the issues arising from this complaint and to describe what modifications and changes it has made as a result.

In not less than three months and not more than six months from the date of imposition of the sanction, Family Matters is required to provide a further written report which evidences the following:

• How it would deal in an appropriate and fair manner with an equivalent complaint under the current complaints procedure, where the complaint was out of time and the allegations were of a serious nature.

• How its current complaints procedure has sufficient flexibility built into it, to deal with complaints in a just and fair manner.

• The consideration given to making reasonable adjustments for those clients who may require it, with examples of how that might be applied.

These written submissions must be sent to the Head of Professional Ethics & Legal Services by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by the Sanction Panel.

November 2011: Catriona MacPherson, Reference No: 525630, Falkland KY15

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2002, 2007, 2009) and the alleged breaches of the Codes of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors 1996 & 1998.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, was that the complainant received counselling from Ms MacPherson monthly from October 1996 to October 2007, initially to assist the complainant with bereavement.  When seeking therapy, the complainant was satisfied that her childhood experiences, which included abuse, were not a cause for concern.  However, the complainant alleged that Ms MacPherson focussed the therapy upon her childhood, encouraging a regression to childlike states, in which the complainant alleged that she re-experienced her past abuse causing her detriment.  The complainant alleged that Ms MacPherson compounded this concentration upon childhood by infantilising her, allegedly giving her gifts appropriate to a young child, by allegedly sending her texts and cards in which she referred to herself as the complainant's ‘mummy', and allegedly signing off with expressions of love.  The complainant alleged that this therapeutic approach broke down her defences and that eventually she was allegedly unable to go to work.  She alleged that when she tried to express her disagreement with Ms MacPherson's approach, Ms MacPherson became angry with her, and allegedly told the complainant that she (Ms MacPherson) would be shot if it was known how long Ms MacPherson had been seeing her.  

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:

• In the provision of her counselling, Ms MacPherson allegedly failed to provide good quality of care to the complainant.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly failed to focus on the bereavement issues that the complainant wished to address, allegedly focussing inappropriately on the complainant's childhood experiences of abuse, which she wished to remain behind her.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly failed to adhere to professional boundaries in her frequent texting of the complainant, and in sending her cards and letters, and in the exchange of gifts between them.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly sent the complainant a book which was destructive in its effect upon the client.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly used inappropriate language and coded language that infantilised the complainant, and allegedly created and sustained an ongoing dependent relationship.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly practised a form of therapy with the complainant, which was beyond her competence and training as a counsellor.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly wished to conceal how long she had been seeing the complainant.
• Ms MacPherson allegedly failed to address the complainant's concerns about the effect the counselling was having upon her.
• Ms MacPherson's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the complainant, suggested a contravention in particular of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and the personal qualities of competence, integrity and wisdom, and paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 11 and 33 in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2002, 2007, 2009), as well as of paragraphs A.2, A.4, B.2.2.1, B.2.2.3 and B.2.2.6 in the Code of Practice for Counsellors (1996), and paragraphs A.5 and A.6, B.1.3.1, B.1.3.4 and B.2.2 in the Code of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors (1998).

Findings

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

• Ms MacPherson counselled the complainant for eleven years and, knowing the seriousness of the client's issues, offered counselling on a monthly basis only, despite the limitations this placed on the provision of a good quality of care to the complainant.

• Ms MacPherson acknowledged that, knowing these limitations, she encouraged the complainant to continue the therapeutic relationship between monthly sessions through an extensive exchange of texts, letters, gifts and cards.  The Panel found that this encouragement created ongoing dependence.

• Ms MacPherson failed to facilitate an appropriate referral, electing to continue to work on a monthly basis with the complainant.  This failure to refer resulted in the establishment of inappropriate professional boundaries in the relationship through the giving and receiving of gifts, cards, letters and texts.

• There was evidence that Ms MacPherson had focused on bereavement issues during the therapy with the complainant and that the focus changed into exploration of childhood experience of abuse. This was agreed by both parties.

• The Panel found that there was evidence that Ms MacPherson failed to adhere to professional boundaries in that, between face to face sessions, there was extensive texting and exchanging of gifts, cards and letters.  This correspondence was frequently signed by Ms MacPherson with terms of endearment and expressions of love and although declared by Ms MacPherson to be part of the therapeutic process, the Panel found that these declarations fostered dependence and were inappropriate.

• Ms MacPherson had sent the complainant a book, which  both parties agreed had caused the complainant distress but that there had been appropriate discussion and a degree of resolution of the matter.

• The Panel found that a childlike language had been developed and used in therapy and that whilst this was open to interpretation there was insufficient evidence to indicate that this had led to inappropriate infantilisation of the complainant.

• The Panel found that Ms MacPherson worked, for the most part, within her training and competence and that she consulted regularly with her supervisor.

• The Panel found that Ms MacPherson had failed to inform her supervisor of the extensive and full nature of the correspondence between the complainant and herself in respect of exchanged gifts, cards and letters and this failure was evidenced in the statement of the supervisor.

• The Panel found that Ms MacPherson had not tried to conceal how long she had been counselling the complainant.

• The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that Ms MacPherson had failed to address the complainant's concerns about the effect the counselling was having upon her.

Decision

Accordingly, the decision of the Panel was that the Complaint is upheld in part.

The Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Malpractice on the grounds of negligence, breaching of appropriate boundaries and providing inadequate professional services which fell below the standards that would be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. 

Mitigation

The Panel found that the complainant had gained some benefit from the counselling provided by Ms MacPherson, and that this was acknowledged by the complainant in her evidence.

Sanction

Ms MacPherson's BACP Accredited status will be lapsed with immediate effect.  Once the sanction has been satisfactorily completed, Ms MacPherson may apply for reinstatement of her Accreditation.

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

Additionally, in no less than six months and no more than twelve months from the date of imposition of the sanction, Ms MacPherson is required to provide a further written report which evidences the following:

• Her learning and understanding in respect of the importance of appropriate boundary keeping in counselling relationships.
• Her learning and understanding of the potential consequences of encouraging extensive correspondence between counselling sessions.
• Her learning and understanding of the impact of inappropriate use of terms of endearment in correspondence with clients and of the exchange of gifts.
• Her learning and understanding about the creation of dependence in clients and its potential impact on the therapeutic process.
• Her learning and understanding about the need to make appropriate referrals in the best interest of a reluctant and resistant client.
• The positive changes she has made to her counselling practice as a result of the complaint.

All reports must be sent to the Head of Professional Ethics and Legal Services and will be considered by an independently constituted Sanction Panel.    

September 2011: Hillingdon Women's Centre, Reference No: 119102, Middlesex UB10 9JU

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 commenced counselling through the Hillingdon Women's Centre (HWC) in August 2010.

In November 2010, following 9 counselling sessions, the complainant alleged that her counsellor called her to inform her that she could no longer continue with sessions as she had left the Hillingdon Women's Centre.  Following this phone call, the complainant alleged that she contacted the Centre to explain the situation and subsequently attended a very unsatisfactory meeting with a volunteer co-ordinator at the Centre.  The complainant alleged that in the meeting she was informed of the shortcomings of the Centre and specifically its failure to meet BACP requirements.  The complainant alleged that the co-ordinator was unprofessional in that she also discussed problems she had experienced with the counsellor that the complainant had been seeing.  The complainant alleged a poor quality of service on the part of the Centre as she was further informed that they were unable to access her client file. 

The complainant alleged an incompetently delivered service; specifically, instead of helping her to find another counsellor as soon as possible she was informed that she would need to join the waiting list again despite the fact the Hillingdon Women's Centre states on its website that ‘counselling at the centre is for as long as is needed.'

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:

• The alleged failure to provide a good quality of care; specifically the unprofessional and inappropriate disclosures about the problems and difficulties of running the service and the request that the complainant does not disclose the full extent of the problems.
• The alleged lack of care and poor service in having an unplanned and abrupt ending of the counselling provision and the failure to manage that ending appropriately.
• The alleged lack of good quality of care and poor service following the abrupt ending of the counselling provision.
• The alleged poor and inappropriate management of the client records.
• The alleged failure to provide adequate and consistent information in relation to the service offered in terms of the number of sessions offered to clients.
• HWC allegedly made an unwarranted and unjustifiable claim on the website that ‘counselling at the centre is for as long as is needed.'
• The alleged failure by the Hillingdon Women's Centre to remedy the distress caused to the complainant as a result of the poor and abrupt ending of the counselling relationship and the subsequent unprofessional disclosures.
• The alleged actions and behaviour of Hillingdon Women's Centre, as described by the complainant, suggest a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 12, 34 and 42 and 60 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and the ethical principles of Being Trustworthy.

Findings

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

• There was a sharp difference of opinion as to whether a volunteer at HWC had made inappropriate disclosures to the complainant. The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence brought to make a finding that inappropriate disclosures were made.

• The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence brought to make a finding that HWC had requested the complainant not to divulge the full extent of the alleged problems in the running of the Counselling Service at HWC.

• The Panel found that HWC could not have reasonably known that the complainant's counsellor would bring the counselling to an abrupt end. When the complainant made HWC aware of this, she was offered four options: a counsellor external to HWC, priority on the waiting list, a copy of the Complaints Procedure, and a free ending session. She availed herself of one of these options, the free ending session, which took place on 13 December 2010. The Panel therefore found that HWC had not managed the ending inappropriately nor provided a poor service or lack of care, in that the organisation provided the complainant with options, including the free ending session of which the complainant availed herself.

• The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that client records were poorly and inappropriately managed.

• In response to questioning, HWC stated that counsellors were given a template with information which they could pass on to clients. However counsellors were not obliged to use that template and could use their own information format. The Panel found therefore that systems were not in place to provide adequate and consistent information in relation to the service offered in terms of the number of sessions offered to clients.

• In response to questioning, HWC admitted that following a counselling meeting on 2 May 2009, it was decided to change its policy of offering open-ended counselling sessions to offering time limited counselling of 12 sessions to new clients. HWC also admitted that it had not updated its website to indicate this change of policy for over a year. HWC admitted that this could be misleading for clients or potential clients. The Panel therefore found that the claim on HWC's website could be construed as unwarranted and unjustifiable following the change of policy.

• The Panel found that the options offered to the complainant to remedy her distress were not unreasonable given the exceptional circumstances of a counsellor leaving the service with no prior notice.

• The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that HWC failed to keep trust with the complainant.

• The Panel found that with regard to the alleged breach of paragraph 34 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice, it was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence brought to demonstrate that HWC did not protect clients from poor practice as HWC had a supervisor policy in place.

• In light of the above, the Panel found that HWC had contravened paragraphs 12 and 60 of the Ethical Framework and the ethical principle of being trustworthy, and did not find that paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 34 and 42 had been contravened.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice on the grounds of inadequate professional services.  The counselling service provided by HWC fell below the standards that would be reasonably expected, in that HWC failed to update its website and failed to provide clients with consistent and adequate information. 

Mitigation

HWC offered profuse written and verbal apologies to the complainant for the unforeseen departure of the counsellor, and the consequences of this.

Sanction

Within three months from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, HWC is required to provide a written report detailing its learning from this complaint, including confirmation that it has now updated its website.

In particular, HWC should include written reflections on its increased understanding of the need for proper systems to disseminate consistent and adequate information to clients of counselling services.

All submissions under this sanction will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

  

September 2011: Ruth Barnett, Reference No: 524033, Cambridge CB24

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 having recently commenced a two-year Diploma in counselling, the complainant decided it would be beneficial to experience the effectiveness of therapy by seeking counselling.  The complainant received counselling from Ms Barnett from November 2009 until March 2010.  The complainant alleged that although the sessions went well for a few weeks, she subsequently experienced dissatisfaction in the manner in which therapy was conducted.  She alleged that Ms Barnett held some of her sessions in an inappropriate setting, specifically a communal seating area with other people around.  The complainant further alleged that on two separate occasions, once on 8 March 2010 and again on 22 March 2010, Ms Barnett failed to turn up to the pre-arranged counselling sessions.  In addition the complainant alleged that Ms Barnett failed to inform her of this fact beforehand.  The complainant alleged that on both of these occasions it was only when she reminded Ms Barnett by telephone that she received an apology.  Following the final missed session, the complainant wrote an email to Ms Barnett expressing her concern about the missed session and questioning whether she had her best interests at heart.  The complainant alleged that the response to her email demonstrated a complete lack of professionalism in that Ms Barnett provided an inappropriate level of detail regarding her personal circumstances.  In addition the complainant alleged that Ms Barnett not turning up for the appointed sessions has caused her feelings of confusion and vulnerability and led to a loss of trust placed in Ms Barnett.

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:

• The alleged failure by Ms Barnett to provide a good quality of care to the complainant in that she failed to attend two sessions without giving prior notice.
• Ms Barnett allegedly showed no consideration or foresight in relation to the complainant by failing to arrange a third party to contact her to inform her that she would not be able to attend the sessions.
• Ms Barnett allegedly failed to provide a competently delivered service in that she held sessions in a communal seating area so that other people could potentially overhear the sessions taking place.
• Ms Barnett allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the concerns raised in the complainant's email.
• Following Ms Barnett's non-attendance at the counselling sessions, she allegedly failed to contact the complainant leaving it to the complainant to make initial contact with her.
• Ms Barnett allegedly disclosed too much personal and inappropriate information in an email when providing an explanation for her actions.
• The alleged failure by Ms Barnett to maintain a professional relationship with the client, specifically by asking the client ‘for another chance' and thereby allegedly undermining the trust and commitment placed in her by the client.
• The alleged failure by Ms Barnett to recognise the complainant's vulnerability and concerns about the lack of trust she had in Ms Barnett having disclosed confidential matters to her in the sessions.
• The alleged actions and behaviour of Ms Barnett, as described by the complainant, suggest a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 11, 19 and 41 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and the ethical principles of Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Being Trustworthy.

Findings

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

• Ms Barnett and the complainant were in agreement that Ms Barnett had failed to attend two counselling sessions; Ms Barnett stated that she failed to inform the complainant that she would not be attending the first of the unattended sessions because she was ‘distracted'. This was despite knowing the previous week that she would not be able to attend the session as she was not prepared to cross a picket line. In this instance the Panel found that Ms Barnett failed to provide a good quality of care to the complainant.

• Ms Barnett was unable to attend the second session due to unforeseen illness, and therefore unable to inform the complainant of her absence prior to the session. The Panel found that this was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

• Ms Barnett failed to arrange contact by a third party to inform the complainant of her absence from the first unattended session believing, at the time, that this may amount to a breach of confidentiality. However, in her written response and verbal evidence, she conceded that in future, should a similar situation arise, she would make sure her client was informed ‘even by a third party'. The Panel found that Ms Barnett's actions at the time amounted to an error of judgement and evidenced a lack of consideration and foresight in relation to the complainant.

• The Panel found that Ms Barnett had held part of a counselling session with the complainant in a communal seating area and in doing so failed to provide a confidential setting and therefore a competently delivered service.

• The Panel found that Ms Barnett had paid some attention to the complainant's concerns about her vulnerability in her email correspondence after the second unattended session. However the Panel further found that in concentrating on detailing her personal circumstances at length, Ms Barnett failed to respond at an appropriate level to the concerns raised by the complainant.

• The Panel found that Ms Barnett failed to contact the complainant after the missed sessions, leaving the complainant to make initial contact.

• The Panel found that in her email of 24 March 2010, Ms Barnett had disclosed an inappropriate amount of personal information.

• Ms Barnett did ask the complainant ‘for another chance' and the Panel found that this was unprofessional in that it placed an inappropriate responsibility on the complainant and undermined the trust and commitment placed in Ms Barnett by the complainant.

• The Panel was satisfied that Ms Barnett had recognised to some extent the complainant's vulnerability and concerns about lack of trust, however the Panel was not satisfied that this was at a sufficient level.

• In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 11, 19 and 41 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2010 and the ethical principles of Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Being Trustworthy had been breached

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Ms Barnett's actions fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.  In particular, she provided the complainant with inadequate professional services.

Mitigation

Ms Barnett informed the Panel that she has ceased counselling and is currently not practicing.  Ms Barnett was contrite and made a full and frank admission of her failings in this particular case.  She acknowledged a need for further training in a number of areas and described some attempts to address the issues raised in the complaint and seek further training.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Ms Barnett 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 Barnett is required to have monthly supervision for at least one year with an integrative supervisor, addressing the specific issues raised in this complaint including the ethics, boundaries and responsibilities of working in private practice, contracting and the use of supervision, in the light of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.  Ms Barnett is required to begin this monthly supervision within 3 months from the date of imposition of this sanction.  Following completion of a year's supervision, Ms Barnett is to provide a written submission which demonstrates and evidences her detailed learning from the complaint and which is countersigned by the supervisor.

Ms Barnett is further required to provide evidence of formal training of no less than 10 hours duration covering the following topics:

• Working in private practice
• Ethics and Boundaries in counselling practice
• Contracting and Confidentiality

This formal training must be completed within 18 months from the date of imposition of this sanction.

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

  

September 2011: Leslie Shepperd, Reference No: 526708, Gloucestershire GL17

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 worked as a voluntary counsellor at the X college counselling agency.  Having completed 100 client hours required for qualification in late March 2009, responsibility for the arrangement of supervision passed from the college to the college counselling agency.  The agency arranged a single supervision session with a new supervisor, Mr Shepperd, which took place on 20 April 2009. 

The complainant alleged that Mr Shepperd acted unprofessionally in the session.  He further alleged that Mr Shepperd was unfair in the consequent supervision report.  The complainant was particularly dissatisfied with the closing line of Mr Shepperd's report, which reads, ‘I must state that I do not believe that [the complainant] is currently competent to work with vulnerable people'.  The complainant alleged that Mr Shepperd fails to provide any evidence to support his alleged unprofessional and unfair statements made in the report.  The complainant wrote a letter of complaint to Mr Shepperd dated 20 May 2009.  He alleged that Mr Shepperd did not respond to his letter of complaint and allegedly refused to engage with him directly regarding his concerns about the report and the manner in which the session was conducted.

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:

• Mr Shepperd allegedly failed to adequately clarify the terms under which the supervision session was being conducted. Specifically, the alleged failure to set clear objectives and terms with the complainant at the outset of the supervision session.
• Mr Shepperd allegedly failed to make an assessment of the complainant's supervision needs in the session.
• Mr Shepperd allegedly made an inappropriate assessment of the complainant as a counsellor.
• Mr Shepperd allegedly failed to provide constructive feedback, thereby failing to maintain good practice.
• Mr Shepperd allegedly failed to respond to the complaint letter received from the complainant.
• Mr Shepperd allegedly failed to remedy any harm and distress that may have been caused to the complainant as a result of the report.
• The alleged actions and behaviour of Mr Shepperd, as described by the complainant, suggest a contravention in particular of paragraphs 3, 8, 17, 27 and 34 51 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2009 and the ethical principle of Justice.

Findings

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

• The agency had arranged a meeting between Mr Shepperd and the complainant, but their expectations from the meeting, prior to it taking place, were different.  Mr Shepperd believed he was being asked to conduct a single assessment session with a view to whether the complainant could work in the agency, while the complainant believed he was being asked to have an initial assessment with a view to Mr Shepperd becoming his new supervisor.  There was therefore a different understanding between the two parties of the purpose of the supervision session.  The Panel was satisfied that Mr Shepperd had made a verbal contract in the session based on what he understood to be his brief from the agency.  The Panel was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Shepperd had failed to adequately clarify the terms under which the supervision session was being conducted or set clear objectives and terms at the outset of the session.

• There was agreement that the session had started late, and there was tension in the session.  This, together with the different expectations from the session, made it difficult for Mr Shepperd to make a full assessment of the complainant's needs.  Nevertheless, he was able to identify areas to do with personal development, self-awareness and the need for good support in supervision, and areas of perceived weaknesses in the complainant's practice.  The Panel was therefore not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Shepperd failed to assess the complainant's needs.

• Mr Shepperd sent a report of his assessment of the complainant in an email to the agency manager, in which he concluded that he did not believe the complainant was competent to work with vulnerable clients at that time.  The complainant was of the opinion that Mr Shepperd had not given sufficient evidence to support this conclusion.  Mr Shepperd informed the Panel that had he gone to a further meeting he would have given more information, but he believed the overall tenor of the assessment session provided sufficient evidence to support his conclusion.  The Panel was not satisfied that the notes Mr Shepperd took during the session provided any additional evidence to support the conclusion reached in his report, and was of the opinion that Mr Shepperd's report should have contained further detailed evidence in order to substantiate this strongly critical conclusion.  Therefore, the Panel found that Mr Shepperd's assessment of the complainant was inappropriate and not fair.

• There was little opportunity for Mr Shepperd to provide constructive feedback in what was a difficult and shortened session.  In the subsequent report, Mr Shepperd detailed his criticisms of the complainant's practice but failed to provide him with constructive feedback.  The Panel found that the absence of any constructive feedback did not easily allow for the complainant to remedy what Mr Shepperd believed to be serious concern about his practice, thereby failing to maintain good practice.

• When Mr Shepperd received an email from the complainant complaining about his report, he did not respond to the complainant, or acknowledge receipt of the email.  Mr Shepperd passed the complaint on to the agency and assumed that he would meet the complainant with the agency manager.  This did not occur and Mr Shepperd did not follow up the issues of complaint with the complainant when it would have been appropriate to do so.  The Panel was satisfied that Mr Shepperd failed to respond to the complainant's complaint.

• When the assessment session ran into difficulty, Mr Shepperd attempted to salvage something from the situation at the time.  He then wrote an assessment report about the complainant which he sent to the agency.  Subsequently, he received an email of complaint from the complainant, which he forwarded on to the agency in the belief that they would be dealing with the matter.  In evidence, Mr Shepperd informed the Panel that he would have been available with regard to this matter, but that in checking with the agency, it did not reveal any issues of distress, nor that he was required to discuss things.  He further stated that he regretted if there was any harm or distress caused to the complainant.  The Panel was therefore not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Shepperd had failed to remedy any harm and distress caused.

• In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that Mr Shepperd had contravened paragraph 27 of the Ethical Framework and the ethical principle of justice, and was not satisfied that paragraphs 3, 8, 17, 34 and 51 had been contravened.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Mr Shepperd's actions fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.  In particular, he provided the complainant with inadequate professional services.

Mitigation

Mr Shepperd regretted if there was any harm or distress caused. The Panel recognised that he was acting on instructions from the agency and that there was a strong possibility that there had been confused communication between himself, the complainant and the agency.  Mr Shepperd was further under the impression that the agency would be dealing with the complaint.

Sanction

The Panel imposed the following Sanction:

Following a period of reflection, and within three months from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the appeal deadline, Mr Shepperd must submit a report of not less than 1000 words, in which he demonstrates his learning from the issues arising from this complaint.

All reports must be sent to the Head of Professional Conduct and will be considered by an independently constituted Sanction Panel.

  

June 2011: Joel Mahabir, Reference No: 505899, London W5

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 arranged an initial counselling session with Joel Mahabir on 5 February 2010, after seeing a statement on his website that the first session would be free.  Mr Mahabir told her that although the first part of that initial session was free, the second part would be charged at £60.  The complainant alleges that Mr Mahabir's normal hourly charging rate is £60, that he was not in fact offering a first session free of charge and that he was misrepresenting the cost of the services he was offering to her.  The complainant further alleges that Mr Mahabir advertises a free CD with a first appointment that she did not receive. 

A second appointment was tentatively arranged for 4 days later but subject to the complainant being able to arrange time off work.  On 6 February 2010, the complainant says she rang Mr Mahabir several times unsuccessfully to cancel the next session and to tell him that she did not want any further counselling sessions from him.

Subsequently, the complainant received a letter from Mr Mahabir claiming £60 as a late cancellation payment.  The complainant alleges she responded by leaving him a message by telephone reminding him that the appointment of 8 February 2010 was provisional only and pointing out that imposing the late cancellation charge was impractical and therefore unjust.  The complainant then received a demand from Mr Mahabir for £100 and £25 legal costs if the debt was not paid in 10 days. 

When the complainant spoke to Mr Mahabir directly, she alleges that he became aggressive and told her that she was "a poor listener".  The complainant also alleges that Mr Mahabir said that she "should not have got married in the first place", a comment that related to issues that she discussed with him in the first session. The complainant states that she was shaken and upset and alleges that it was hurtful to use personal information obtained in a counselling setting, against her.

The complainant also alleges that subsequently Mr Mahabir left a message on her answer phone stating that he had just checked his diary and the charges were not applicable, but repeated his comment that she was a poor listener.  This was confirmed in a letter Mr Mahabir sent to the complainant dated 25 March 2010.  Mr Mahabir added the comment that the complainant had "very rudely put the phone down" on him.  The complainant alleges that his failure to check his diary and to send letters demanding payment before doing so was unprofessional.

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:

• In allegedly advertising a free first session and subsequently making a charge and failing to give the complainant a CD, Mr Mahabir lacked integrity in not ensuring that the information on his website was accurate and that what he held out in his advertisement was matched by what he said about his charges to the complainant.  As a result of the alleged disparity, he misled and exploited her by failing to provide the client with adequate information.

• Mr Mahabir allegedly made an unjust claim for £60 for late cancellation charges in circumstances where an appointment was made shortly after the first session and was conditional on the complainant being able to make arrangements for time off work at short notice.  Further Mr Mahabir allegedly failed to check his diary and yet persisted in claiming payment and increased the claim to £100 plus legal costs of £25, threatening action.  The complainant felt intimidated and exploited as a result of Mr Mahabir allegedly failing to clarify the terms under which his service was being offered.

• Mr Mahabir allegedly made judgemental comments about the complainant in a telephone conversation and used information obtained during the counselling session which resulted in the complainant stating she felt hurt.  In doing so, it is alleged that Mr Mahabir failed to show respect to the complainant and consequently failed to provide a good quality of care.

• When Mr Mahabir conceded by telephone and letter dated 25 March 2010 that the cancellation charges were withdrawn, again he allegedly criticised the complainant for not listening and "very rudely" putting the telephone down on him.  In repeating these criticisms and failing to speak to her in a courteous way, it is alleged that Mr Mahabir failed to be properly accountable to her for the way he had pursued his claim for money and behaved unprofessionally, without due care for the client.

Findings

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

• When questioned, the complainant agreed that she had not been entitled to a free CD, as this was for those who did not know whether they wished to pursue counselling.

• The Panel found that Mr Mahabir's website was potentially misleading, in that the distinction between the initial consultation, the assessment, and counselling was not clearly made. The Panel found that this lack of clarity could be interpreted as saying that the whole first session was free, which it was not.

• The Panel was not satisfied by Mr Mahabir's declaration that ‘ordinary people' are sufficiently technologically aware to follow the links on the website. These links significantly qualify the information on the Home (first) page of the website. Consequently the Panel found that the complainant had been exploited and misled by the contents of the website.

• Mr Mahabir accepted, in his letter dated 25 March 2010, that there ‘was not enough time for [the complainant] to enquire over [her] travel arrangements'. Under these circumstances, the Panel found it unjust for Mr Mahabir to have pursued his claim for payments in his letters dated 21 February and 12 March 2010.

• When questioned, the complainant agreed that, as a result of the phone call on 1 February 2010 (after she had looked at the website) she did understand the terms and conditions of the service offered by Mr Mahabir.

• Mr Mahabir accepted when questioned, and given the evidence of his voicemail message of 24 March 2010, that he had said that the complainant was rude, and that she was a poor listener, despite the fact that he had categorically denied this initially in his written evidence. The Panel did not accept Mr Mahabir's explanation that these comments were acceptable as he believed that in the context they were purely matters of fact, and were not ‘critical or judgemental'.

• The Panel found that in making these comments Mr Mahabir showed profound disrespect for the complainant and acted inappropriately and unprofessionally.

• On the balance of probabilities, the Panel found that Mr Mahabir did comment, or say words to the effect that the complainant ‘should not have got married'.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Mr Mahabir's actions fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.  In particular, he provided the complainant with inadequate professional services.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Mr Mahabir should provide a written report detailing his immediate reflections and learning from the events that led to this case.

In not less than six months, but no more than twelve months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Mr Mahabir should provide:

• Written evidence that he has reflected upon and analysed the dynamics of his relationship with this particular client, with particular reference to his new learning about the responsibilities of the practitioner before, during and after any therapeutic contact. This document should in addition fully demonstrate that Mr Mahabir understands his obligations to clients in the above circumstances. The whole must be agreed and signed off by a supervisor in good standing with BACP, as a true and accurate record of his learning and reflection in the time since this complaint.

• A copy of a written contract to be used with clients which reflects Mr Mahabir's learning following this Hearing. Mr Mahabir should demonstrate that he has discussed and had signed off this contract as fit for purpose by a supervisor in good standing with BACP.

Mr Mahabir's BACP Accredited status will be removed with immediate effect.  Once the sanction has been satisfactorily completed, Mr Mahabir may apply for reinstatement of his Accreditation.

All reports must be sent to the Head of Professional Conduct and will be considered by an independently constituted Sanction Panel.  

March 2011: Julie Bradshaw, Reference No: 546158, Leicestershire LE11

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 sought CBT with Dr Bradshaw, and was recommended by her instead to undertake intensive time line therapy.  This would allegedly consist of two sessions each of three hours duration and would cost £600, in addition to the £55 fee for the initial meeting.  The Complainant was surprised at the cost but accepted the contract.  He was also told he would need to buy a book costing £40 and a DVD.  Dr Bradshaw further allegedly offered the Complainant a business opportunity.  At the first of the three hour sessions, which allegedly lasted only two hours, the Complainant enquired about the business opportunity, and was given further information by Dr Bradshaw, as well as two samples of a product he could buy into for a payment of £1250.  In the second three hour session, the Complainant alleges the actual therapy lasted no more than one and a half hours, the rest of the time allegedly being spent on the business opportunity.  The Complainant alleges that some weeks after the second session, Dr Bradshaw contacted him by voicemail and sent emails to him enquiring about his response to her invitation to join the business opportunity.

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:

• Dr Bradshaw allegedly offered intensive timeline therapy to the Complainant when he had been told by his consultant that it was cognitive-behaviour therapy that was appropriate to his needs; in doing so Dr Bradshaw offered a form of therapy for her own benefit rather than his.
• Dr Bradshaw allegedly failed to provide the amount of time for therapy agreed with, and paid for, in advance by the Complainant.
• Dr Bradshaw allegedly introduced a business opportunity into the therapy, thereby engaging in a dual relationship with her client, as well as encroaching on the time set aside for the therapy itself.
• Dr Bradshaw allegedly exploited the Complainant, who was in a vulnerable position both financially and emotionally.
• Dr Bradshaw allegedly contacted the Complainant as a former client in an attempt to pursue a business relationship; at the same time allegedly failing to follow up the outcome of the therapeutic contact with the Complainant.
• Dr Bradshaw's alleged behaviour, as experienced by the Complainant, suggested a contravention in particular of the ethical principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, fidelity and beneficence and of paragraphs 4 and 17 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy (2010).

Findings

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

• Dr Bradshaw and the Complainant engaged in discussion in the initial assessment session on 13 April 2010 about the type of therapy that would be appropriate to the Complainant's needs.  This discussion involved an exploration of, and an offer of intensive timeline therapy.  The Complainant had sufficient opportunity to consider the offer prior to the uptake of the counselling sessions.  Subsequently there was mutual agreement between Dr Bradshaw and the Complainant that intensive timeline therapy would be undertaken and two sessions took place respectively on 4 and 6 May 2010.

• Dr Bradshaw and the Complainant disagreed as to what was contracted between them regarding the session length.  The Complainant understood the individual sessions would be 3 hours in length while Dr Bradshaw stated that the individual sessions would be up to 3 hours in total including preparation time.

• Dr Bradshaw and the Complainant disagreed as to when and how the Complainant received a leaflet from Dr Bradshaw advertising a business opportunity.

• Dr Bradshaw contested that the Complainant had received the leaflet from her in the assessment session on 13 April 2010, but she contended that he received it in a book he had bought from her on 23 April 2010.

• Dr Bradshaw and the Complainant agreed that the issue of the business opportunity had been discussed in the counselling session of 4 May 2010.  When the Complainant returned for his session of 6 May 2010, the business opportunity was again discussed.  While both agreed the business opportunity had been discussed, they disagreed about the length of those discussions.

• Dr Bradshaw claimed that on 4 May 2010, she had referred the Complainant to the business website, and also provided him with samples of the product promoted by the business opportunity.

• Dr Bradshaw, having introduced the Complainant to the business opportunity and directing him to the website, took advantage of the opportunity to discuss the business opportunity in the counselling sessions, therefore encroaching on the time set aside for therapy.

• Dr Bradshaw, after introducing the business opportunity to the Complainant then pursued it in an email of 25 May 2010, despite being aware that the Complainant was in a vulnerable position both financially and psychologically.

• Despite Dr Bradshaw's stated practice of not following up on clients after the close of therapy, she did so on this occasion in an email of 25 May 2010.  However, the major focus of the email was to enquire about the Complainant's intentions re the business opportunity and to inform him that there was to be a skype call to an involved party.

• Dr Bradshaw did not consider the implications of having a counselling relationship with the Complainant and discussing a business opportunity with him in the counselling sessions and over the duration of the therapy.  This dual relationship had a detrimental impact on her client, in that he could not focus solely on the therapy, and he lost trust in counselling.

• In allowing the duality of these roles, Dr Bradshaw failed to honour the trust placed in her by the Complainant.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Dr Bradshaw failed to provide the Complainant with the adequate professional services that could reasonably be expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill.

Mitigation

During the course of the hearing, Dr Bradshaw accepted that she had been in a dual role with the Complainant and that this had been inappropriate.  Dr Bradshaw had sought to remove all links to the business opportunity from her website but this removal had been incomplete and Dr Bradshaw gave an undertaking to remove the remaining links.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Dr Bradshaw is required to provide a written submission which evidences her immediate reflection on, and understanding of, the issues raised in this complaint.  Dr Bradshaw will also provide, at this time, a written statement detailing the changes she has made to her website in respect of the links she allows.

Additionally, in no less than six months and no more than twelve months Dr Bradshaw is required to provide a further written detailed submission which evidences the following:

• Her learning in respect of clarity of roles in her therapy practice and details of positive changes she has made to her practice as a result.
• Her learning in terms of providing information about her counselling service to clients and potential clients and details of the specific changes she has made in relation to providing information to clients and potential clients about her counselling service.
• Her understanding of the implications for clients and practitioners of holding dual roles in a therapeutic relationship and in particular the detrimental effect on vulnerable clients, and how she would manage the issue of potential dual roles arising in her practice as a result.

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

December 2010:   David Brown, Reference No: 564279, Dorset BH23

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

The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2010 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 commenced counselling with Mr Brown in August 2009, having discussed with him his experiences and competence in working in a psychodynamic way.  Mr Brown assured the complainant that, although he was not trained in this modality, he was familiar with psychodynamic work.

At the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010, the complainant alleged that Mr Brown persuaded her to attend a workshop which he was facilitating with a colleague. The complainant stated that she questioned Mr Brown about whether the workshop was suitable for her and Mr Brown replied affirmatively.  The complainant's experience of the content of the workshop was that it was completely inappropriate for her.

At the start of the workshop, the complainant alleged that Mr Brown's colleague made a comment to her about issues in the complainant's life that could only have come from her previous counselling session with Mr Brown.  The comments related to personally sensitive and confidential information.  After the comments were made by the colleague, the complainant alleged that Mr Brown had said that he thought that she would not mind.  As a result of this alleged breach of confidentiality, the complainant said that she felt betrayed, abused, ashamed and depressed.

The complainant said that subsequently she spoke to Mr Brown about his alleged breach of confidentiality but was not satisfied with his response, including his explanation about why he believed the complainant would not mind.

The complainant asked to see her notes and stated that Mr Brown did send her a copy of them.  However the address was incomplete as the name of the road was missing.  The complainant complained that they were sent second-class, took a week to reach her and she feared that they may have gone astray in the intervening days.

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

• In entering into a counselling relationship with the complainant, Mr Brown allegedly did not sufficiently clarify how he proposed working with her, taking into account her expressed wish to work in a psychodynamic way on her issues around anger.

• In persuading the complainant to attend a workshop facilitated by him, Mr Brown allegedly did not give sufficient consideration to the impact of entering into a dual relationship with the complainant. 

• Furthermore it is alleged that Mr Brown did not give the complainant sufficient information to make an informed decision about whether to attend the workshop.

• It is further alleged that Mr Brown failed to explore with the complainant expressly whether he could disclose to his colleague with the complainant's consent, any confidential and personally sensitive information that she had revealed during therapy.

• In allegedly disclosing confidential and personal sensitive information to his colleague without explicit consent, Mr Brown failed to honour the trust that the complainant had placed in him.

• In allegedly sending a copy of the complainant's notes by second class post and incorrectly addressed, Mr Brown failed to exercise sufficient care in the way he sent confidential information to the complainant, risking it going astray. 

Findings

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

• When questioned, Mr Brown accepted that his initial contracting with the complainant was insufficiently clear as to the services he provided. As such, there was a lack of clarity with regard to whether Mr Brown and the complainant had agreed to work in a psychodynamic way, or not.

• Mr Brown accepted, when questioned, that he had not given sufficient consideration to the potential impact of entering into a dual relationship with the complainant (by her attending a workshop facilitated by him, whilst also in therapy with him). In particular, he had not taken this issue to supervision prior to the complainant attending the workshop.

• The Panel found that Mr Brown had not given the complainant sufficient information to make an informed choice about whether or not to attend the workshop; it being his responsibility to raise the issue of dual relationships and their potential impact with her.

• The Panel found that Mr Brown, whilst recommending the workshop to the complainant, had not sought to persuade her to attend.

• Mr Brown accepted that he had failed to explore with the complainant whether or not he could disclose information about her to his co-facilitator, and that he should not have done so without her express permission.

• Mr Brown also accepted that he had disclosed two personal details to his co-facilitator: namely that the complainant was in therapy with him, and that she had had a similar experience to an experience described by his colleague. He further accepted that he should not have disclosed these details.

• There was a sharp difference of opinion between the complainant and Mr Brown as to whether there had been further disclosures. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence brought to make a finding either way.

• The Panel was not satisfied that Mr Brown had incorrectly addressed the envelope containing the complainant's notes. Although the address was not complete, the letter was delivered to the correct address. However, when questioned, Mr Brown accepted that he had failed to exercise sufficient care in the way in which he sent the notes.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to Professional Misconduct in that Mr Brown has contravened the ethical and behavioural standards that could be reasonably expected of a member of this profession.

Sanction

Within one month from the date of imposition of this sanction, which will run from the expiration of the Appeal deadline, Mr Brown should provide a written report detailing his immediate reflections and learning from this complaint.

In not less than six months, and no more than twelve months from the date of imposition of this sanction, Mr Brown should provide:

• A copy of a written contract that he uses with clients, which he has discussed and had signed off as fit for purpose by a supervisor or consultant, who is outside of his current supervisory network, and who he has been working with for at least four months.

• Evidence that he is using formal and documented client reviews, which are signed off as fit for purpose by a supervisor or consultant as above.

• A report that evidences that he understands his obligations under the Ethical Framework to consider the implications of dual relationships. This should be related, in part, to a clear understanding of his role in the issues that led to this complaint. This second report must be signed by his supervisor as above as a true and accurate record of his learning.

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