May 2026: LE, Membership Number 00990129, Registrant ID N/A

May 2026: Lotti Eno, Membership Number 00990129, Registrant ID N/A

Consensual Disposal

Reasons

1. Lotti Eno, a BACP individual member since […], agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into a complaint of a failure to meet Professional Standards under reference […].

Background

2. The Complainant had a therapeutic relationship with the Member between 8 October [Year 1] and 28 September [Year 3] at […], while the Member was on a placement as a trainee.

In [Year 3] arrangements were made by […] for sessions to move from face to face to online. When informing the Complainant of that change, the Member did not advise him that he could choose to have face to face sessions with a different therapist.

The Complainant says that in concealing information about moving sessions online, the Member prevented him from making an informed decision about moving to a different therapist to continue receiving face-to-face therapy.

Admissions

3. The Member makes the following admission which BACP accepts.

Allegation 1

1.1 When telling the client that their therapy sessions would be changing from in person sessions to online sessions, the Member did not advise him that he could choose to have in person sessions with a different therapist:

Mitigation

4. The Member puts forward the following in mitigation, which has been summarised below, and taken into account by the IAC in deciding the appropriate outcome.

The Member was required by her University to unexpectedly transfer all of her therapeutic work to online sessions immediately due to a lack of liability insurance. The Member took advice from her placement and was advised to tell clients that due to unforeseen circumstances she was required to move her client sessions online for the foreseeable future, that they can be allocated an alternative therapist should they wish to remain face to face.

The Member considered the advice she was given was abrupt and may cause distress to the Complainant given the issues he had disclosed and she sought advice from her external supervisor who expressed apprehension in offering an alternative in person therapist given the length of time the Member had been working with the Complainant (18 months) and the issues expressed by the Complainant. As there had already been a number of online sessions at the Complainant’s request, as a relationally focused integrative psychotherapist, the intention of the Member was to maintain the therapeutic relationship and work adaptively and dynamically with the sessions online and maintain the quality of the trust that had been built and the progress that had been made.

As a trainee, the Member deferred to advice given by her supervisor and reflects that she should have explored alternative paths and advice. Whilst this decision was made using her discretion with supervisory guidance, the Member acknowledges that this decision was made without client involvement which consequently caused him distress and made him feel there had been a breach of trust; what the Member was intentionally and genuinely trying to avoid. At the time, the Member felt that this decision maintained her therapeutic intention of working relationally and with reparation, with her client being the primary focus. Reflecting on this situation she can see how this actually took away from the professional standard of putting her client first, due to not including the client in any decision making surrounding this unexpected change. Offering the client the option of an alternative face to face therapist would have afforded the client autonomy and for herself as the therapist to remain in alignment with responding to the client’s wishes and goals in therapy. Reflecting on this further, in this incident her therapeutic intention was to avoid playing out past dynamics. In focusing so heavily on the potential to work with the transition to online, and to ensure that this was effective (especially given it had worked successfully in previous sessions), the Member accepts that she did not give equal attention to other available options. In doing so, she deprived the client of agency in offering them autonomy to make their own decision how they wish to move forward with continuing therapy. She is deeply sorry for the upset that this has clearly caused the Complainant.

The Member has discussed the issues raised and the complaint to the BACP with her supervisors. Whilst she is of course concerned and upset to have a complaint made and allegations referred at the very outset of her career, this experience has highlighted her awareness of the potential impact decision making can have on a client and she has embraced the opportunity to reflect and learn from this incident. Risk of repetition is highly unlikely given the circumstances in which this abrupt and unexpected change to service delivery came about. But in future the Member will ensure to utilise all available supervision to explore conscious processes just as much as unconscious processes. She will ensure that the client is always the primary focus of her attention and work during sessions together and understands that one of the key components of developing and protecting client’s trust in that they maintain autonomy over decisions such as these.

Conclusion

5. The issue identified and admitted by the Member amounts to breach of the professional standards reasonably expected of the Member having regard in particular to paragraphs 7 and 12 of ‘Good Practice ’in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

7: We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together; and/or

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

6. One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The IAC, in considering the appropriate outcome, including any sanction, for the admitted breaches in this case, have taken into account the interests of public protection and determined that it is reasonable and proportionate to conclude, in the circumstances of this complaint, not to impose a sanction. The IAC recognises that the Member was unable to continue to provide face to face therapy to the Complainant for reasons that were outside of her control and that she took the appropriate steps of taking advice from her placement and her supervisor. The IAC is satisfied that the Member has developed as an independent practitioner and has acquired the skills necessary to assess advice she receives and, where appropriate, exercise her own independent judgement.

7. The Member agrees that this Agreement will be published by the BACP in line with the Publication Policy.

8. The Member agrees that she will not act in any way inconsistent with this Agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions in paragraph 3 above.

9. If the Member acts in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement the matter will be referred to a sanction panel for consideration. Such a decision would be published.

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