January 2026: AA, Reference No 00804380 Reg: 371301

January 2026: Ansa Ahmed, Reference No 00804380 Reg:371301

Allegation

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member prepared a report dated 11 September Year 1 which was unprofessional in that:

a. The content of the report was based in part on audio and/or video recordings which she had not verified as being authentic; and/or

b. She breached confidentiality by naming and/or identifying third parties without their consent; and/or

c. She made inappropriate judgemental comments, including (but not limited to):

i. Calling the Referrer “his […]”; and/or
ii. Calling the Referrer “his […]”; and/or
iii. Calling the Referrer “his […]”; and/or

iv. Stating “This was clear power-play games with the Client’s emotional and mental state”.

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:

48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute) and/or

46 (We will give conscientious consideration to the law and how we fulfil any legal requirements concerning our work).

Allegations 1.1 (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Admissions

The Member made no admissions.

Evidence before Panel

• The BACP’s bundle of evidence.

• The Member’s bundle of evidence.

• The written evidence of the original complainant.

• The oral evidence from witness […] and the Member.

• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 (PCP).

• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

• The decisions of the Case Management Hearings on 20 March and 10 April Year 5.

• Late evidence admitted as outlined below.

Preliminary Application

[..]

Both parties confirmed that there was no objection to the admission of the new evidence. The Clerk referred the panel to the provisions of paragraph 4.9c and protocol 4 of the Professional Conduct Procedure which set out the matters to be considered in relation to the admission of late evidence. He advised the Panel that it should consider those provisions and decide whether it would be in the interests of justice to admit the late evidence.

Decision on late evidence

The Panel took into account the written and oral submissions of […] and noted that there was no objection from […] on behalf of BACP to admission of the late evidence. It determined that there would be no unfairness to either party in admitting the late evidence. The Panel decided therefore that it was in the interests of justice to admit the late evidence.

Witness’s Oral Evidence

On the first day of the hearing, the original Complainant […] gave evidence to the Panel. […]
The Witness told the Panel that she first saw the report prepared by the Member […] on 1 February Year 3 .[…]
The Witness denied having contacted the Member by telephone on 31 January Year 3 as alleged; she stated that until she saw the report on 1 February, she was unaware of the Member’s name or contact details and would therefore have been unable to do so.[…]

Adjournment

At the beginning of the second day of the hearing […], […] on behalf of the Member applied for an adjournment of the proceedings for unforeseeable and unavoidable personal reasons. His application was supported by […] on behalf of BACP.

The Panel took advice from the Clerk, who drew the Panel’s attention to Protocol 12 and paragraph 4.13 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:

‘4.13 Adjournments

The Panel may, on the application of either party or of its own initiative, and having regard to protocol PR12, adjourn a Hearing if it considers that to do so is in the interests of justice.’

The Panel was satisfied that the Member’s representative had complied with the procedural requirements of Protocol 12 and noted its guidance that a Panel might grant an adjournment if a legal representative is unavailable at short notice, in unforeseen circumstances. The Panel therefore granted the application and the matter was adjourned, part heard, for continuation with the same Panel.

Reconvened Hearing – 29 July Year 5

The Panel reconvened on 29 July to conclude the hearing. The parties were provided with a written transcript of the earlier proceedings. The Clerk to the resuming hearing is […], due to the unavailability of the previous Clerk.

Member’s Oral Evidence

The Member confirmed the contents of her Witness Statement dated 21 May Year 4, Supplementary Statement dated 17 June Year 5, Interim Response dated 9 November Year 3 and the email chain between her and BACP dated from 20 -26 June Year 3.

The Member summarised her background and experience.[…]

The Member stated that on the afternoon of 31 January Year 3, she received an abusive telephone call from a woman whom she did not know.[…] The Member stated that she advised her insurers and her supervisor of the call. She told the Panel that the report was prepared for her client’s immigration hearing and she was not aware that he intended to use it […]. She stated that she now states in her reports that they cannot be used for other purposes; however, she accepted that she cannot prevent a client from using a report elsewhere.

The Member stated that her client provided the audio recordings referred to in her report (but not video recordings) together with professional transcripts of those recordings. The Member confirmed that she no longer has those transcripts. She acknowledged that her report does not refer to having reviewed transcripts and described this as an oversight. She stated that she carried out a risk assessment and considered the risk to be low as the evidence was clear and credible. She did not discuss the matter with her supervisor as she did not consider it to be necessary.

With regard to the identification of third parties, the Member stated that […] cases […]. She accepted however that it was not necessary to identify other family members and stated that she no longer identifies family members by name.

The Member told the Panel that when she referred in her report to her client’s […] as “his […]”, “his […]” and “his […]”, she was using her client’s words. She accepted that she should have made clear in the report that these terms were quotes from her client and not her own words. The Member described this as an error and a learning experience. She said that the reference to her client’s […] as […] and the statement that “This was clear power-play games with the Client’s emotional and mental state” were her words. The Member told the Panel that she made those statements as she considered them to be justified in view of the evidence she had seen and heard, namely the audio recordings and photographs […]. She acknowledged that preparing a report which appeared to state opinions as fact may bring the profession into disrepute. The Member said that she had prepared the report as an expert witness but that she believed that her primary responsibility in preparing the report was to her client.

The Member told the Panel that she had been suffering difficult personal circumstances at the time of these events and that this may have affected her judgement. She stated that she has learned lessons from this and made a number of changes to her practice as a result.

Decision and Reasons for Findings

Allegation 1.1 – PROVED

1.1a The Panel found that the Member had accepted that the audio recordings provided by her client could be relied upon, without taking steps to verify for herself whether they were genuine or making efforts to confirm the identity of anyone speaking in them. Although she told the Panel that she carried out a risk assessment of the evidence received, she did not provide details of how that risk assessment was carried out, nor did she state in her report that she had not been able to verify the audio recordings. The Panel noted that the Member stated in evidence that she had been provided with professional transcripts of the recordings, although no reference was made in the document section of the report to any transcripts. However, it noted that transcripts would not in any event be able to identify whether recordings had been manipulated, or the identity of anyone speaking in them. The Panel found the Member’s conduct in this respect to be unprofessional and therefore found this allegation proved.

1.1b The Panel noted that the Member had prepared the report for the purposes of her client’s […]. It found therefore the Member was justified in naming her client’s […] in the report. However, the Panel did not consider that it was either necessary or justified for the Member to name her client’s […] in the report. The Member accepted this when questioned and said that she no longer names third parties. She also acknowledged that she had not taken any steps to prevent her report from being used in circumstances other than the […]. The Panel found her conduct in this respect to be unprofessional and therefore found this allegation proved.

1.1c The Member stated in evidence that the terms used in 1.1c i and ii were words used by her client; however, she acknowledged that her report did not attribute the words to him or make clear that they were allegations rather than facts. The Panel found therefore that anyone reading the report would conclude that the terms “his […]” and “his […]” were the Member’s description of the Complainant.

With regard to the words stated in 1.1c iii, the Member told the Panel that the term “[…]” was used by her client, but the term “[…]” was her own description, based on the information provided by her client. She acknowledged that there was nothing in her report to indicate which terms were her client’s description and which were her own assessment of the Complainant. The Member accepted that the words referred to in 1.1c iv were her own judgement, based on what her client had told her.

The Panel noted that the Member stated in evidence that she was an “expert witness” in the proceedings. Whilst it accepted that the Member may have had some expertise in the field of […] it was clear that she was not instructed as an independent expert and she acknowledged that she considered her primary duty to be to her client.

The Panel found that the Member made inappropriate judgemental comments by including personal judgements on her client’s […], failing to attribute comments to the client, and including allegations made by him as facts. The Panel found her conduct in this respect to be unprofessional and therefore found this allegation proved.

Allegation 1.2 – PROVED

The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 48 and 46 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

The Panel noted that the Member had prepared her report for immigration tribunal proceedings in her capacity as a BACP Counsellor. It found that writing a report which was based on unverified information, unjustifiably named uninvolved third parties and contained inappropriate judgemental comments fell well below expected professional standards and amounted to conduct which will bring the profession into disrepute. The Panel therefore found that the Member had acted in breach of Paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.

The Panel noted that in her oral evidence, the Member stated that her primary duty in preparing the report was to her client and not to the court. It concluded that she had allowed her responsibility to the client to override her duty to provide fair and impartial information to the court. It noted further that the Member’s report included a signed statement of truth, in which she declared that facts in the report were true and accurate, and that opinions were clear. The Panel found that the Member had failed to give conscientious consideration to the law and how she fulfilled any legal requirements concerning her work. The Panel therefore found that the Member had acted in breach of Paragraph 46 of the Ethical Framework.

Professional Misconduct

The Panel went on to consider whether the actions that it had found proved in relation to Allegations 1.1a, b and c amounted to Professional Misconduct, as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:

‘professional misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted’.

The Panel also noted the guidance in the BACP Protocol 14: Guidance on Sanctions, which sets out the following criteria that may result in a decision that suspension or withdrawal of membership is appropriate:

1. Where the Member has knowingly and deliberately behaved in a way to cause harm to the Complainant or other members of the public;

2. Where the Member has been dishonest or lacked integrity;

3. Where the complaint involves sexual misconduct;

4. Where the Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards;

5. Where the Member has abused their position or another’s trust;

6. Where the harm to the Complainant is particularly severe;

7. Where the Member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, their behaviour; and

8. Any other factors the Decision Maker considers warrant withdrawal of membership.

Having considered and applied the guidance set out above, the Panel concluded the allegations found proved amounted to professional misconduct as defined. In particular, the Panel found that the Member’s conduct in writing her report of 11 September Year 1 demonstrated a blatant disregard for professional standards.

Decision

The Panel found that the Member had failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that she had acted contrary to paragraphs 48 and 46 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 24 October Year 5 to consider what sanction, if any, to impose.

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

The Panel also took into account the following documents that were provided on behalf of the Member:

(a) a 9 page typed document from […] of Counsel dated 27 August Year 5,
(b) a bundle of documents consisting of:
• 2 page hand written supportive reference from […] dated 14 September Year 4
• 2 page typed supportive witness statement from the Member’s supervisor […] dated 31 August Year 5
• 3 page typed undated supervision agreement signed by […]
• single page typed dictated but not signed document from the Member’s […] dated 14 August Year 4 together with a single typed page ‘[…]’ in the Member’s name
• single page typed supportive statement from […] dated 28 June Year 4
• 6 pages of information about a […]
• 2 typed pages of information about a course titled ‘Introducing GDPR’
• 6 pages of information about ‘Confidentiality Awareness’ training in the workplace
• 1 page of information about accessing information about a health condition disclosed by the Member
• 1 page of information about accessing information about managing stress for health care workers
• 1 page of information about courses available for, inter alia, health and social care

The Panel took into account the following mitigating factors:
• the Member has engaged with BACP’s regulatory process
• the Member has had no previous regulatory concerns
• the Member was experiencing difficult personal circumstances at the time of the events in question
• through the written submissions of Counsel the Member has expressed a willingness to cooperate with and complete any sanction the Panel sees fit to impose.

The Panel took into account the following aggravating factors:
• the Member’s lack of understanding of the difference between writing a report in support of her client and the role of an expert witness
• the Member’s limited insight into her conduct and the consequent risk of repetition

The Panel considered the Member’s conduct to be towards the upper end of seriousness and that it had described the Member as having demonstrated a blatant disregard for professional standards. However, the Panel stopped short of suspending the Member’s membership of the Association in light of the mitigating factors it identified and the Member’s willingness to cooperate with and complete any sanction the Panel sees fit to impose.

The decision of the Panel is to impose the following sanction, the Panel considering it sufficient to protect the public and safeguard the public interest.

Within 5 months of receipt of this decision the Member is to provide to BACP:
(1) Evidence of completion of courses/training of at least 4 hours duration each on confidentiality and GDPR and a course/training on forensic report writing of at least 6 hours duration.
The Panel is providing 4 months for the completion of this part of the sanction as it recognises that the courses/training the Member is required to complete are of a specialist nature.

(2) Having completed the above courses/training to provide to BACP:

(a) a letter of apology to the original Complainant focusing on the specific Allegations and addressing what went wrong in this case,

(b) a written document setting out what went wrong in this case, what the Member has learned from the courses/training they have taken as requested in (1) above, what changes they have made to their practice to avoid a repetition of the conduct set out in the Allegations, how they have embedded these changes into their practice referencing the relevant parts of the Ethical Framework 2018 and the impact of their conduct on the Complainant and the wider counselling professions.

In addition to the above sanction, the Member is requested to confirm that:

(a) she has discussed her letter of apology, her courses/training and her learning from this with her supervisor, and

(b) she intends to take any reports she writes in the next 12 months for courts/tribunals to supervision before she sends them to the court/tribunal.

[…]

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