April 2026: ST, Membership Number 00737466, Registrant ID 225285

April 2026: Stephen Taylor, Membership Number 00737466, Registrant ID 22585

Attendees:
1. The Member, Stephen Taylor, attended and was represented by […] (Counsel).

2. The Complainant, […], attended alone.

Introduction:

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.

Background:

4. In June [Year 2] the Complainant submitted a complaint about the Member, who had seen the Complainant’s son […] for three sessions in March-May [Year 1]. The Complainant was unhappy with the Member’s behaviour towards her and her husband […], alleged failures to maintain confidentiality and professional boundaries, bias and imposition of his own personal agenda.

5. In November [Year 2], […] provided his consent for the Complainant to make the complaint on his behalf.

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of Allegation:

6. The Panel, of its own volition, proposed to amend the allegations, pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure:

a. To renumber the allegations so that paragraph 1 became allegation 1.1, the first paragraph 2 became allegation 1.2, paragraph 2.1 remained unchanged and the second paragraph 2 became 2.2.

b. Amend allegation 2.1 to remove ‘in November [Year 2] and replace with ‘in/around June [Year 1].

7. The Parties had no objections to the Panel’s proposed amendments.

8. The Panel took advice from the Clerk who referred them to Clause 4.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and advised that they should take into consideration the principles of fairness when deciding on what changes to make. In particular, if they were considering adding an additional head of complaint then they should adjourn the hearing to allow the Member proper time to prepare their defence.

9. The Panel decided to make the amendments as set out above because they provided improved clarity, removed confusion and there was no prejudice to either party in their doing so.

Late Evidence

10. The Member, through his representative, had made an application for new evidence to be admitted and considered as part of the hearing. The nature of the evidence was a letter before action from the Complainant, sent to the Member around a week before the hearing and the email by the Member forwarding it to his solicitor. The Member submitted that they were unable to submit the document earlier as it had not been received by the Member before.

11. The Complainant was invited to respond to the application. She objected to the documents being admitted on the basis of lack of relevance but accepted that she had authored and sent the letter, which requested a refund of fees from the Member and indicated she would take small claims court proceedings if he did not refund her.

12. The Panel took advice from the Clerk. Having done so and taking into account clause 4.9c of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 (PCP) and the Protocol on Late/New Evidence (Protocol 4), the Panel concluded:

a. In light of the Complainant’s acceptance that she wrote and sent the letter, and indication of its contents, it was unlikely that admitting the documents would be prejudicial to her case.

b. There was a possibility that they may contain some relevant evidence to the matters to be decided.

c. There was a good reason for the Member not submitting the documents earlier.

13. The Panel decided that it was in the interests of justice to allow the application and admit the documents into evidence.

The Allegations

14. The Allegations made against the Member are as follows (as amended by the Panel during the hearing):

1.1 The Member did not

a) keep appropriate records relating to the treatment of […] and /

b) did not provide the clients with a record of what had been agreed between them in relation to the services to be provided.

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

31. We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to:

a. reaching an agreement or contract that takes account of each client’s expressed needs and choices so far as possible.

b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context.

d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed.

e. keeping a record of what has been agreed and of any changes or clarifications when they occur.

2.1. The Member failed to respect the privacy and dignity of the Complainant and her family and/ or failed to respect their personal and religious beliefs in that in the final meeting with the Complainant and her family in/around June [Year 1], he:

a) was verbally abusive and used intolerant and inappropriate language and/ or

b) used sexual language and references that the Complainant found offensive.

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 ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

21. We will respect our clients’ privacy and dignity

22 (a) We will respect our clients as people by providing services that:

a. endeavour to demonstrate equality, value diversity and ensure inclusion for all clients.

Admissions:

15. The Member’s representatives informed the Panel that the Member admitted the facts of allegation 1.1(b) – that he did not keep or provide […] or his parents with a copy of what he agreed with […] during contracting in […] first session.

16. The Panel, notwithstanding the admissions, went on to consider all facts alleged.

Evidence

Witness Evidence

17. The Member gave evidence.

18. The Complainant also gave evidence.

19. The Panel gave permission for the Complainant’s husband, […], to give witness evidence.

Documentary Evidence

20. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included but was not limited to:

a. The original complaint and associated correspondence between BACP and the Complainant;

b. The Member’s initial response and subsequent submissions and witness statement;

c. A witness statement from […].

Facts

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

21. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel has borne in mind that findings should be made on the balance of probabilities, or whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred.

Findings

22. The Panel noted that the Complainant had maintained throughout that she, […] and her family were all clients of the Member. The Member denied this and submitted that his only client was […], although the Complainant and […] were funding […] sessions and it was agreed that the Member would provide them with progress updates.

23. The Panel took into consideration the BACP’s definition of ‘client’ for the purposes of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, which states:

‘A client is anyone in receipt of coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or counselling skills from a member or registrant of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. This includes being a supervisee or trainee.’

24. The Panel found it was not in dispute that the Complainant and […] did not receive therapeutic services from the Member, but they contracted with him to provide services to their son, […]. It concluded that the Complainant and […] had entered into a commercial contract with the Member for the provision of services, which made them commercial customers. But for the purposes of BACP professional conduct proceedings, they were not ‘clients’ as they were not, themselves, in receipt of coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or counselling skills from the Member. […] was in receipt of such services, and for the purposes of these proceedings the Panel concluded he, and only he, was the Member’s client.

Allegation 1.1 – Proved in part

25. The Panel reviewed the allegation closely as it was ambiguously drafted. It noted that allegation 1.1(a) related to appropriate record keeping ‘relating to the treatment of […]. It therefore interpreted this to relate not to a record of contractual terms but to the keeping of records relating to the therapy provided that are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided (although it recognised that paragraph 15 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 had not been alleged in allegation 1.2.)

26. The Panel noted that the wording of allegation 1.1(b) closely reflected that of paragraph 31(d) of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It therefore concluded that allegation 1.1(b) related to records of the contracting process with […].

27. The Member stated that his normal practice was to produce a sequential diagrammatic reformulation (SDR) during his sessions with clients, which were shared with the client during sessions and added to in subsequent sessions. He did not, however, keep any session notes. He explained that this is normal practice for Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT), of which he is a practitioner. The Panel noted there was no other direct evidence of what took place in the sessions with […], because he was not giving evidence. It therefore accepted the Member’s evidence. It concluded that, in the context of a CAT therapist, the preparation and maintenance of an SDR was appropriate record keeping of the therapy provided. It therefore found allegation 1.1(a) not proved.

28. Allegation 1.1(b) alleges a failure to provide clients with a record of what had been agreed during contracting. The Panel reminded itself that […] was the only client for the purposes of these proceedings. It accepted the Member’s evidence that he carried out verbal contracting with […] in their first session but did not either keep or provide to […] a record of what they agreed during the contracting process. He accepted this was a failing and submitted that he has initiated a written contracting process now to prevent similar failings in the future. The Panel therefore found allegation 1.1(b) proved by admission.

Allegation 1.2 – Proved in part

29. The Panel applied its findings in relation to allegation 1.1 to allegation 1.2. It found that the Member’s failing set out in allegation 1.1(b) amounted to a breach of paragraph 31(d) of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Allegation 2.1 – Proved in part

30. The Panel found that, on both parties’ evidence, on the balance of probabilities the Member made a comment along the lines of children […] and their parents could not do anything about it. The Member said he uses a phrase along these lines as a metaphor for how parents cannot control their children. The Complainant and […] insisted he said their daughter […]. On either account, the Panel concluded that this amounted to sexual language and, on the Complainant’s evidence, accepted that she had found it offensive.

31. The Panel noted the Complainant and […] alleged the Member also used the following abusive/intolerant/inappropriate/sexual language:
a. Referred to […];
b. […]
c. […]
d. […]
e. ‘You are out of touch with your beliefs’.

32. The Panel accepted the Complainant’s evidence that the notes attached to her complaint, which set out the details of her complaint, were partly contemporaneous but that she had amended them subsequently, which is why they made reference to her BACP complaint. The Panel found that, as it was unable to identify which parts of the notes were contemporaneous and which were not, it could not give any of the notes the weight of a contemporaneous account.

33. The Panel reminded itself of the Clerk’s advice regarding assessing witnesses’ reliability. It recognised the two common errors of supposing: (1) that the stronger and more vivid the recollection, the more likely it is to be accurate; and (2) the more confident a person is in their recollection, the more likely it is to be accurate. The Panel acknowledged the fluidity of memory and the fact that an honest witness can construct an entirely false memory, which either did not happen at all, or which happened to somebody else.

34. The Panel did not doubt that the Complainant and […] were telling the truth as they recalled it. However, in addition to the above analysis of memory, it noted the evolution of their evidence between the original complaint and the hearing (for example the addition of comments which they said had been made by the Member about Pride marches, which were not mentioned in the original complaint or statements) and the inconsistency between them about when in the meeting events took place. The Panel agreed that, if the above comments had been made by the Member to his client’s parents it would have been wholly improper and a breach of the BACP Ethical Framework 2018. However, taking into consideration the Member’s good character and the above analysis, the Panel concluded that the Complainant’s and […] accounts were not, on the balance of probabilities a reliable and accurate reflection of what happened in June [Year 1].

35. The Panel found that the Complainant had not proved that it was more likely than not that the Member made the comments at 31(a)-(e) above.

36. The Panel found allegation 2.1(a) not proved. It found allegation 2.1(b) proved in relation only to the […] comment.

Allegation 2.2 – Not Proved

37. The Panel applied its findings in relation to allegation 2.1 to allegation 2.2. It noted that to be a breach of paragraphs 21 or 22(a) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, because it had concluded the Complainant and […] were not clients, the comments found proved must have failed to respect […] privacy and dignity (not the Complainant’s and/or […]) or to have not demonstrated equality, value diversity and ensure inclusion for […] (not the Complainant and/or […]).

38. The Panel concluded that the […] comment (the only one found proved), while subjectively offensive to the Complainant and […], did not amount to a breach of paragraph 21 or 22(a) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Decision

39. The Panel concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of the Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the counselling professions 2018:

31. We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to:
d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed.

Sanction

40. The Panel reconvened on 17 March [Year 3] to determine what sanction, if any it could impose, sanction being a matter for the Panel’s judgment.

41. Prior to the hearing the Panel had received and considered written submissions from Counsel on behalf of the Member.

42. The Panel reminded itself of the findings of fact it had made and its decision on breach of the Ethical Framework 2018 and bore in mind throughout its decision making on sanction BACP’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance, Protocol 14 and BACP’s overarching objective of protecting the public and safeguarding the public interest.

43. Paragraph 5.12 b of the PCP states that the Panel may impose one or more of the following sanctions where a case has been allocated to the Practice Review Track:

i. A requirement to send a written apology to the relevant recipient of the therapeutic services provided by the Member (whether or not that recipient is the Complainant) by a specific date;
ii. A requirement to demonstrate specific change/improvement in practice by a specific date;
iii. A requirement to undertake specific training by a specific date;

44. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and the wider public interest, although it may have a punitive effect.

45. Throughout its deliberations the Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Member’s interests with the public interest.

46. The Panel first considered whether to make no order and concluded that the facts found proved and the consequent breach of the Ethical Framework 2018 were too serious to not impose a sanction.

47. The Panel determined the following sanction to be proportionate:

Within 8 weeks of receipt of this determination to complete a minimum of 3 hours of continuing professional developments on the importance of contracting in the therapeutic relationship and to provide evidence of his undertaking this in the form of certificate(s) of completion of course(s) and/or a log of his reading of relevant materials or his personal study.

 

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