Professional Conduct notice / Tony White

Allegations

Allegation 1 (as amended at the Hearing)

1.1 The Member provided therapeutic services to the Complainant between 23 June and 4 August Year 1.

1.2 On 21 June Year 1, the parties agreed to 50-minute therapy sessions by Zoom at a cost of £25 per session.

1.3 At their first Zoom session on 30 June Year 1, the Member allowed the session to over-run significantly beyond the agreed 50-minute duration, causing the Complainant to:

(i) become conscious time was over-running;

(ii) offer to pay an increased fee;

(iii) pay an increased fee of £40.

1.4 At their first Zoom session on 30 June Year 1, having allowed the session to over-run significantly beyond the agreed 50-minute duration, the Member accepted an increased payment from the Complainant.

1.5 On numerous occasions, the Member allowed the sessions to over-run significantly beyond the agreed 50-minute duration.

1.6 During the therapeutic relationship, the Member sent out of session correspondence to the Complainant at inappropriate times, in particular:

(i) on 30 June Year 1, the Member emailed the Complainant at 22.35;

(ii) on 5 August Year 1 the Member emailed the Complainant at 00.40.

1.7 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

33 We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:-
a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.

Allegation 2

2.1 On 21 July Year 1, the Member failed to attend a Zoom session with the Complainant that was agreed for 8.00pm without informing the Complainant he would not be attending.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

12 We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust.

Allegation 3

3.1 On 5 and 6 August Year 1, the member sent emails to the Complainant that ended the therapeutic relationship:

(i) inappropriately;

(ii) abruptly;

(iii) without notice.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

39 We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client’s expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member’s conduct set out in Allegations 1-3 amounted to a failure to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

13 We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection.

4.2 Allegation 4 is an allegation of Professional Misconduct.

Preliminary issues

1. The Panel heard that the Member would not be attending this hearing and it heard an application from […] under rule 5.9 to proceed in the absence of the Member. […] advised that the Member had received notice of the hearing from BACP on […] by letter and email, and a reminder on […]. He replied on […] stating that he would not be attending the hearing and described the hearing as a “farce”. […] submitted that the Member had voluntarily absented himself and he asked the Panel to proceed with the hearing today in his absence. There was nothing to indicate that an adjournment would secure his attendance. The Complainant was in attendance and ready to give live evidence. […] submitted that there was a case to answer and that it was fair and appropriate that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Member.

2. The Panel accepted the legal advice from the Clerk as to fairness and the guidance in Adeogba v GMC [2016] EWCA Civ 162 regarding balancing fairness to the Member with the need for expedition and the public interest.

3. The Panel considered all the information before it and took account of the reply from the Member. It was mindful of its powers under 5.9. Notice has been properly served and the Member is clear in his […] email that he knows about the hearing and states clearly that he will not be attending. He has not asked for an adjournment and there is nothing to suggest that adjournment would secure his attendance at a future date. The Panel was satisfied that there is a clear indication that the Member does not want to attend the hearing. There is a case to answer, and the Panel is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is fair and appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Member.

Applications for amendment of the allegation and to admit late evidence

4. […] made an application to receive late evidence and to amend an allegation. He explained these were linked applications. He explained that there was an error on allegation 1.6 which was simply wrong in parts ii) and iii) as the emails had not been sent by the Member, as alleged, but by the Complainant. He submitted that it was therefore appropriate to delete particulars 1.6 ii) and iii). […] stated that the Member had been advised and had agreed that the allegation be amended as proposed. He submitted there was no prejudice to the Member and sought that the allegation be amended as proposed.

5. […] referred to the IAC report and advised it had considered that allegation 1.6 should be expressed as “inappropriate,” although that was not in fact what the Complainant had initially stated. However, […] advised that the Complainant subsequently raised concerns about the unprofessional and inappropriateness of these emails. […] asked the Panel to receive into the evidence that more recent correspondence from […] and a subsequent statement from the Complainant dated […]. He submitted that it was fair and appropriate to allow that evidence to be received, although late and that it was relevant. He submitted that the evidence came to light late in the day and was relevant to the allegations the Panel must consider. The Member was given notice of this new evidence and the proposed amendment by email on […], five days ago. He has not responded and does not refer to this issue in his email to BACP on […]. […] referred the Panel to the guidance in Protocol PR4.

6. The Clerk referred the Panel to the Protocol PR4 and the guidance on new/late evidence. He reminded the Panel about the need for a clear explanation for the late evidence, for fairness to parties and to consider whether it was relevant and in the interests of justice to admit the evidence. He advised the Panel that it may make directions to mitigate any unfairness that may arise if the evidence is admitted, and it was for the Panel to attach such weight to the evidence as it considers appropriate if it is admitted.

7. The Panel accepted the legal advice and it agreed with the submissions that it was fair and appropriate to allow the proposed amendment to correct an error in 1.6 ii) and iii). The Member has been advised and has agreed. The Panel therefore concluded that it was fair and appropriate to delete those parts of the allegation and to renumber 1.6 (iv) as (ii). There was no interest in proceeding with allegations that were wrongly expressed.

8. The Panel considered PR4 and was mindful of the interests of justice. The Panel heard detailed oral submissions from […] and it did not consider that it was proportionate or necessary to insist on a written submission. The evidence is late, and it is not clear quite why this evidence is so late. However, the Panel understands that in seeking to produce the further statement from the Complainant, as well as the previous correspondence from the Member, […] is properly seeking to balance fairness to both parties. The Panel was satisfied that the Member has had reasonable notice of the new evidence and that he has not responded or objected.

9. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the late evidence appears to be relevant to the allegation and that it was fair, and in the interests of justice to both parties, to admit this evidence, albeit late. Given the balanced approach taken, the Panel did not consider that in doing so there would likely be prejudice to either party. It will in due course be for the Panel to assess that evidence and to attach such weight to it as it considers appropriate. The Panel therefore grants the application for amendment and late evidence.

Admissions

10. The Member was absent. He has made no admissions.

Evidence before Panel

In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered all the evidence and in particular had regard to the following:

• The Association’s bundle of evidence and exhibits.
• The two witness statements and oral evidence of the Complainant,[…]
• The written representations from the Member
• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018

Opening Submissions for the BACP

11. […] opened the case for the Association and summarised the background, complaint and allegations. He stated that the Complainant saw the Member several times, the first was on 23 June, and the last on 4 August Year 1. The parties emailed thereafter and it is alleged that the Member brought the therapeutic relationship to an end on 6 August Year 1 in an abrupt and inappropriate way. […] submitted that the payment for the sessions had been agreed and was not disputed and that therefore allegation 1.1 and 1.2 can be found proved. That the session on 30 June Year 1 took place is not disputed, and it is alleged it was the Member’s fault that the sessions over ran, lasting nearly 90 minutes instead of 50 minutes. […] advised that the Member then failed to attend a session arranged with the Complainant and, despite the Complainant contacting him at the time, the Member failed to respond. Subsequent sessions continued to overrun until the relationship was brought to an end by the Member.

12. […] advised that the cause for the repeated over running of sessions was disputed. The Member blames the Complainant, and vice-versa. […] submitted that the inappropriateness alleged in 1.6 was a matter for the Panel. […] reminded the Panel that allegations 1 - 4 use the word “including” in relation to the professional standard quoted in each allegation. He submitted that it was for the Panel to exercise its own judgement and to consider all the standards and make its own findings in that regard, including as to professional misconduct in allegation 4.

The Complainant’s evidence

13. The Panel heard live evidence and received two witness statements from the Complainant, […]. The Complainant took the affirmation and he referred to his witness statements dated […] and […] and stated that they were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. The Complainant stated that on 20 June Year 1 the parties had corresponded, and the Member had advised that his fees would be £25 for 50-minute sessions on Zoom. That was agreed, and after a positive initial telephone call on 23 June Year 1, the parties seem to have a rapport and they arranged their first session on 30 June Year 1.

14. The Complainant stated that the Member’s style was not what he was used to. The Complainant stated that the Member did not give him much opportunity to talk. During the first session on 30 June Year 1, the Complainant started the session by explaining matters that he wanted to bring to therapy, such as the […] and unresolved issues from […]. Within the first 10 minutes of the session, the Member asked him what his […] memory was and asked about specifics […]. The Complainant felt that the Member had tried to push him straight into recalling memories […] and that he did not allow him sufficient time to talk himself and explore his thoughts. He stated that it appeared that the Member had attempted to come to a diagnosis very quickly and he started talking about […] very early on in the first session, which had seemed premature.

15. The Complainant stated that first and subsequent sessions went past the 50-minute agreed time, lasting about 90 minutes, and he said that this was because the Member had just kept talking, despite the Complainant pointing out several times that they had over run. The Member had not responded and had just continued to talk. The Complainant said on numerous occasions that he was conscious time was overrunning but the Member seemed willing to continue the session and had made no attempt to bring it to a close. Despite this, the Complainant stated that he accepted the Member’s style as an ‘interrogative counsellor’ and they had ended the first session on a positive note.

16. Conscious that the session had over run the contracted 50 minutes, the Complainant offered to pay more than the agreed fee of £25 as he said he felt “bad” that it had over run. The Member did not insist on that, but the Complainant said that he would pay £40 for the session. He did so, and the Member acknowledged and thanked him. They had then agreed on recurring sessions at 8pm on a Wednesday.

17. After a cancelled session by the Complainant on 7 July Year 1, the parties next had a session on 14 July Year 1. That session, again, ran well over time. The Complainant said that he accepted the Member would do the vast majority of the talking, but that had left the Complainant feeling at the end of the sessions that he had not had adequate time to speak and discuss what he wanted.

18. The Complainant stated that he wanted to make it clear at the session on 14 July Year 1 that whilst he had paid the Member the additional sum for the first session overrunning, he wanted to stick to the 50-minute sessions going forward. The parties discussed the option of extending to 90 minutes, but the Complainant did not want to do so. The Complainant said that he felt an over run of no more than about 10 minutes would have been acceptable, but the sessions all over ran significantly, particularly the first and last session. The Complainant said that he felt that the Member had the responsibility to “stick to the timings.”

19. The Member missed the session on 21 July Year 1 without notifying the Complainant. The parties had emailed earlier that day confirming the time for the session of 8pm, the usual time, but the Member had then failed to attend the Zoom call. The Complainant emailed the Member at 8:09pm but the Member did not respond. The Complainant sat on the Zoom call until 8:40pm, tried calling the Member, then left him a voicemail at 8:30pm, but the Member did not respond. The Complainant stated that he did not hear from the Member until the following day on 22 July Year 1 when the Member apologised, stating that he felt unwell and asked to reschedule. The Complainant said that he felt it had been unprofessional for the Member not to make any contact with him at all on the evening of 21 July Year 1 to advise he could not attend. It seemed “casual” and out of character and had felt in hindsight that had rather undermined his trust in the Member.

20. The Complainant said that, whilst the next two sessions on 28 July and 4 August Year 1 were positive, the sessions continued to overrun. The main reason for delay was the Member’s proclivity to talk at great length about his subject matters, and it was not due to the Complainant requesting extra time. After their conversation on 14 July Year 1 when they had agreed to stick to the 50-minute time slot, the Member did not mention overrunning as an issue at either session on 28 July or 4 August Year 1 and there was no agreement regarding additional fees for overrunning.

21. The Complainant said that after the session finished on 4 August Year 1, the Complainant felt positive and that there had been some breakthroughs. However, the Complainant said he felt it was a bit of a “scattered approach” and they had not spent significant time in the sessions discussing each issue, but he did feel that progress was being made. The session again overran with the Member continuing to talk beyond the session scheduled end times but there was no further discussion of fees during these sessions.

22. The Complainant sent the Member an email at 23.05 on 4 August Year 1 thanking him and attaching some of the self-assessments he had sent, and also advising him that he had sent payment for the session. On 5 August at 00:40 the Member sent an email to the Complainant that he said was very blunt, unprofessional and abrupt, stating that the Member was not happy to work with the Complainant for 90 minutes for £25, ending their sessions without any opportunity to discuss. The Complainant said that the email was completely out of the blue, unpleasant, and that it stunned him, making him incredibly anxious. He felt the Member had “dumped” him when he had been making progress. There had been no indication from the Member that the sessions were coming to an end.

23. The Complainant said that the agreed fees were £25, as per the email dated 21 June Year 1, and that there was no agreement for any additional payments beyond the 50-minute session. The additional payment the Complainant paid for the first session on 30 June Year 1 was an ex-gratia payment that he was not obligated to pay but he had felt morally that he should do so. However, the Complainant stated that he was not the cause of the sessions overrunning and he believed that the Member should have taken responsibility for setting up, monitoring and maintaining boundaries.

24. The Complainant then called the Member to discuss his email, leaving a voicemail, but the Member did not return his call. The Complainant sent an email to the Member on 5 August Year 1 explaining his position. He received an email reply from the Member on 6 August Year 1 and again felt that the Member’s tone was abrupt and cold, stating ‘you are taking too much of my time’ which the Complainant said hit him hard.

25. The Member responded on 6 August Year 1 blaming the Complainant for being the cause of the sessions overrunning, listing the lengths of the sessions, and stating that the Complainant was the cause of the ‘persistent boundary violation’. The Complainant said he disagreed strongly with that and felt that the Member had been “gas lighting” him, and he had been very hurtful. He also refuted the Member’s suggestion that the Member had emailed him about overrunning on 28 July Year 1 and said that this reference was simply about completing the self-assessment in advance rather than within the 50-minute session.

26. Other than the first session, the Complainant paid £25 for each session. The Complainant said that he would have been happy to discuss fees if this was an issue for the Member, but that the Member never raised it or gave him the opportunity to do so. The Complainant stated that he felt the Member was expecting him to pay over the agreed fees based on the fact he did it in the first session, however the Complainant did not think to pay any more than the agreed amount as the additional time at the end of the sessions was the Member’s choice as he had continued talking. The Complainant felt that he was receiving little benefit from the additional time.

27. The Complainant referred to his more recent witness statement of […] referring to the timings of emails from the Member as being inappropriate. He agreed that he had not raised that issue in his original complaint, but had raised it after receiving the IAC decision which had set out an allegation about the appropriateness of the timing of the emails. The BACP had then asked him to provide a further witness statement about that aspect of allegation 1.6.

28. The Complainant disagreed and disputed the Member’s written response to the allegation dated […] and his description of the Complainant’s conduct in the sessions where the Member asserts that it was the Complainant who delayed ending the sessions and acted aggressively. The Complainant denied fabricating anything and said that there was no interest in him doing so. He said that the Member would send him about one email per week with some links and forms to complete and there was no substantial out of session contact. He said that he never threatened the Member with a complaint unless he continued to work with him.

Closing Submissions

29. […] closed the case for the Association and invited the Panel to find the allegations proved and to prefer the evidence of the Complainant to that of the Member, which he submitted was not reliable. He submitted that it was the Member’s responsibility to manage the sessions. […] advised that that Association did not consider that the email sent, as referred to in allegation 1.6.(i), was inappropriate as alleged, but that was a matter for the Panel. He submitted that these findings amount to professional misconduct and regard should be had to Protocol PR14, the Sanctions Guidance when considering professional misconduct.

30. The Panel accepted the legal advice of the Clerk and was mindful that the onus of proof rests on the Association and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

31. The Panel was mindful that […] had fairly and appropriately put the Member’s case to the Complainant, so far as was possible in the absence of the Member. Having fully considered all the evidence and applied the balance of probabilities, the Panel made the following findings:

1.1 The Member provided therapeutic services to the Complainant between 23 June and 4 August Year 1.

32. The Panel considered the evidence it had heard from the Complainant. It found his evidence about the allegations was open, clear and credible. He was fair and balanced and did his best to assist the Panel. There was no dispute about this allegation and it is found proved.

1.2 On 21 June Year 1, the parties agreed to 50-minute therapy sessions by Zoom at a cost of £25 per session.

33. These is no dispute about the evidence from both the Member and Complainant that this was agreed and this is found proved.

1.3 At their first Zoom session on 30 June Year 1, the Member allowed the session to over-run significantly beyond the agreed 50-minute duration, causing the Complainant to:

(i) become conscious time was over-running;
(ii) offer to pay an increased fee;
(iii) pay an increased fee of £40.

34. The Panel was mindful of the words “allowed” and “significantly” in this allegation. That the sessions all ran over significantly is not in dispute, and the evidence from both parties supports that. The dispute is over the cause of that. The Panel accepted the evidence of the Complainant who said the session was about 90 minutes, and the Member also refers to over running in his written response. The Panel found as a matter of fact that the session over ran significantly beyond the agreed 50-minute session to around 90 minutes.

35. The Panel found that it was the responsibility of the Member to keep professional boundaries. That includes the Member being responsible for keeping the sessions to the agreed times, or close to the agreed time. The Complainant said that the Member spoke a lot during all the sessions and, despite being reminded by him of the time, the Member had continued to talk taking this first session to about 90 minutes. The Panel accepted the evidence from the Complainant which was clear and cogent, and it preferred his evidence to the assertion from the Member in his written submissions that it was the Complainant who had caused the over run.

36. The Panel accepted and preferred the evidence of the Complainant regarding the over running of the sessions. His position was clear, consistent, credible and reliable. The Member did not attend, and the Panel heard no live evidence from him and was not able to test his version of events. The Panel concluded that it was the Member who allowed the session on 30 June Year 1 to significantly over run. The Panel accepted the evidence that the Complainant had become conscious of the over running and had raised it with no response from the Member. The Panel accepted his evidence as regards elements ii) and iii) and that they happened as alleged. The Member does not dispute that. The Panel concluded that it was the Member’s role to manage sessions. The Panel found this allegation proved.

37. This is not a matter of dispute, and the Panel accepted the evidence of the Complainant and the written submissions of the Member and found this proved.

1.5 On numerous occasions, the Member allowed the sessions to over-run significantly beyond the agreed 50-minute duration.

38. Given the findings in respect of 1.3 and the evidence of the Complainant and the Member, this allegation is proved. There is no dispute that all of the sessions over ran, and the Panel accepted the evidence of the Complainant that all the sessions over ran significantly lasting approximately 90 minutes, well in excess of the agreed 50 minutes. This allegation is proved.

1.6 During the therapeutic relationship, the Member sent out of session correspondence to the Complainant at inappropriate times, in particular:

(i) on 30 June Year 1, the Member emailed the Complainant at 22.35;
(ii) on 5 August Year 1 the Member emailed the Complainant at 00.40.

39. The Panel considered the evidence from the Complainant and was mindful of the word alleged “inappropriate”. The Panel also considered the emails. The email on 30 June Year 1 was after the first session earlier that evening and contained links that referred back to what had been discussed at the earlier session. The Complainant stated he was not concerned to receive the email. The Panel found, in these circumstances, that the email at 22.35 on 30 June Year 1 was not inappropriate, and that 1.6 i) is not proved.

40. The Panel considered the email on 5 August Year 1 sent by the Member at 00.40. The Panel accepted the evidence from the Complainant that he was shocked and distressed to receive that email, which had not earlier been discussed and was unexpected. The Complainant had sent an email at 23.05 that evening but the Panel found that the email from the Member was not a required response to that. The Panel found that in the circumstances, the timing, and indeed the content of the email were inappropriate and it found 1.6 ii) proved.

33 We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:-

a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.

41. The findings at 1.1 and 1.2 are undisputed factual context and do not breach the standard. The Panel considered the finding at 1.3 and concluded that the finding is a breach of this standard. It was a failure to both establish and maintain professional boundaries with clients. Allowing the session to over-run was not appropriate and it was the Member’s responsibility to manage sessions. He did not do so and that was a breach of the standard.

42. As regards the finding at 1.4, the Panel was mindful that the evidence of the Complainant was that the Member said to the Complainant that he “would leave it to his good conscience” to make payment. The Panel found that this was a pressure, albeit subtle, to make an extra payment. Further, although offered, the extra payment was more than had been agreed contractually and placed the Complainant in an unclear and difficult position going forward as regards payment for future sessions. The Panel concluded that the Member was not therefore appropriately managing the client relationship and concluded that 1.4 amounts to a breach of standard 33.

43. Regarding 1.5 and given the earlier findings and reasoning on 1.3 above, the Panel found that this was also a breach of the standard.

44. Regarding 1.6.ii), the Panel found that the sending of the email was a breach as it was not appropriate and it was a failure by the Member to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

Allegation 2

2.1 On 21 July Year 1, the Member failed to attend a Zoom session with the Complainant that was agreed for 8.00pm without informing the Complainant he would not be attending.

45. The parties do not dispute that this happened. This is proved.

12 We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust.

46. The Panel considered the evidence from the Complainant and the explanation given by the Member. The Member had said he was unwell and he had apologised to the Complainant, and the Panel had no basis on which to conclude that the Member had not in fact been unwell. The Complainant accepted that there had been an apology but said that he felt it had been rather “unprofessional” and “casual.” When pressed by […] in questioning, the Panel noted that the Complainant said he had felt, with hindsight, that this incident had somewhat undermined trust.

47. The Panel found that the circumstances were not ideal and it was unfortunate for both parties. The Member had been unwell and he had apologised, albeit the Complainant remained concerned. However, the Panel concluded that, on balance, the incident did not amount to a breach of standard 12. The Panel found that whilst circumstances were not ideal, they were not serious enough to amount to a breach of this standard.

Allegation 3

3.1 On 5 and 6 August Year 1, the member sent emails to the Complainant that ended the therapeutic relationship:

(i) inappropriately;
(ii) abruptly;
(iii) without notice.

48. That the emails were sent and received was not disputed. The Panel found there was no evidence that the ending of the relationship was discussed between the parties before the emails were sent by the Member. The Complainant said he was shocked and distressed when he received the emails from the Member and the Panel accepted that evidence. The Panel found that the timing, the content, the tone and lack of any notice were all inappropriate. The emails clearly ended the relationship abruptly and without notice. The position asserted by the Member that he felt “unsafe”, even if true, does not justify the actions he took and the content of the emails he sent. The Member accepts in his written response that it was his responsibility to maintain boundaries, but the Panel found no evidence that the ending of the relationship was discussed with the Complainant or with the Member’s supervisor. The Panel found this allegation proved in respect of parts i), ii) and iii)

39 We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client’s expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.

49. Given the findings set out above, the Panel concluded that the facts found proved were a breach of standard 39. There was no evidence of informing the Complainant at all, let alone “well in advance” as set out in the standard. The circumstances found proved were a clear and serious failure by the Member to meet this standard.

Allegation 4

4.2 Allegation 4 is an allegation of Professional Misconduct

50. Regarding 4.1, the Panel concluded that, taken together and in the round, the findings of fact amount to a breach of Standard 13 in respect of professional boundaries and endings. They amount to a clear failure to appropriately establish and manage the relationship to a fundamental professional standard or better. That was the Member’s professional responsibility and he failed to do so.

51. Regarding 4.2, the Panel was mindful of the definition of professional misconduct and considered the guidance in Protocol PR14 as to the factors to consider when considering withdrawal or suspension. The Panel concluded that its findings of fact demonstrate a blatant disregard for professional standards by the Member. The Panel found that the Member’s written responses were accusatory, intemperate and ill tempered. He blames the Complainant and the Panel found that his written responses showed a complete lack of insight and remorse into the allegations and the impact on the Complainant and the reputation of the profession.

52. To be clear, the Panel did not find that findings in respect of allegations 1.1. or 1.2 were breaches of the Ethical Framework.

Decision

In conclusion the Panel was of the view that the Member's actions in relation to allegations 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 ii), 1.7 (in part), 3.1, 3.2 amounted to Professional Misconduct.

Sanction

Following the hearing, the Member was notified of the above findings and reasons in writing and given 14 days to respond. No response or submissions in relation to sanction or publication were received. The Panel nevertheless identified and took into consideration the Member’s submissions (pages 92-93 of the hearing bundle) that set out what he had learnt and changed as a result of this complaint.

The BACP Case Manager advised that the Member’s membership of the BACP had ended on […]

The Panel then considered, if the Member had still been a member of the BACP, what sanction would have been appropriate. The Panel reminded itself of its findings (above), the sanctions available under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and the guidance within the BACP Sanction Protocol (PR14).

Having considered the guidance within PR14 and applied it to the breaches found proved, the Panel agreed that it would be disproportionate to suspend or withdraw the Member’s membership.

The Panel decided that, if the Member had still been a member of the BACP, it would have required him to, within 3 months of the date of this letter, provide the BACP with:

1. A written statement demonstrating changes he has made to his ways of communicating (including out of sessions communications) and associated procedures, and how he manages difficult endings. This statement should include:

a. his personal reflections on what went wrong and the impact on the complainant;

b. specific improvements he has made to his practice;

c. reference to the BACP Ethical Framework and any relevant learning he has undertaken since the complaint.

2. A genuine and sincere letter of apology addressed to the Complainant.

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