January 2026: GS, Reference No 00920550 , Registrant ID 374823
January 2026: Gurbinder Singh, Reference No 00920550 , Registrant ID 374823
Attendees:
1. The Member did not attend the hearing
2. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) was represented by case presenter […] (Counsel).
Introduction:
3. This is a Disciplinary Proceedings Track Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.
[…]
4. […]
5. […]
6. […]
7. […].
Preliminary matters
8. The Member did not attend the hearing. On behalf of the BACP, [..] applied for the hearing to proceed in the Member’s absence. He referred to the evidence provided to the Panel of numerous attempts to engage with the member, which had been unsuccessful, including service by signed for post and email to the Member’s registered postal and email addresses. […] referred to the Member’s email dated 19 June Year 3, in which the Member stated that he would not be attending the hearing and would not be renewing his membership.
9. The case manager confirmed that the Member’s membership had lapsed, and he was no longer a member of the BACP.
10. The Panel took advice from the Clerk, who referred them to paragraph 5.9 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:
5.9 Failure to attend the Hearing
a. Where a party fails or refuses to attend a Professional Conduct Hearing or Appeal Hearing, the Panel (or Appeal Panel where applicable) may decide to:
i. proceed with the Hearing in the absence of one or both parties; or
ii. adjourn the Hearing to a new date; or
iii. dismiss the allegations (or appeal).
b. The decision will be notified to both parties.
11. […]
12. […]
13. […]
14. The Panel considered whether to proceed in the Member’s absence. The Panel noted the Member would not be able to question the Complainant and it would not be able to hear (and test through questioning) direct evidence from him. It decided that any prejudice to the Member resulting from being unable to question the Complainant could be addressed by the Panel asking appropriate questions and applying appropriate weight to the evidence. It decided that it was in the public interest to proceed in the Member’s absence.
The Allegations
15. The Allegations made against the Member are as follows:
Allegation 1
1.1 During sessions the Member talked about himself and his family to an extent that went beyond any therapeutic benefit for the Complainant.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 7 and 33 a. 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.
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 In session the Member said to the Complainant that she would not be on her own forever as she was ‘decent looking’ and had a kind and caring personality, or words to that effect.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states:
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 3
3.1 Knowing that the Complainant was an […] and/or ran her own business and/or in any event, the Member asked the Complainant to:
(a) undertake work and/or prepare a report for a charity with which he was connected and/or
(b) speak to […] about writing […] and/or developing […] business.
3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 7 and/or 33 a. and/or 33 b. 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.
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
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client.
Allegation 4
4.1 After the therapeutic relationship between the Member and the Client had ended, the Member:
(a) on one or more occasions separate from Allegation 3.1 contacted the Complainant by electronic means and/or
(b) met the Complainant on one or more occasions socially and/or
(c) kissed the Complainant.
4.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 37 a. and/or 37 b. and/or
37 c. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:
37: We will avoid continuing or resuming any relationships with former clients that could harm the client or damage any benefits from the therapeutic work undertaken. We recognise that conflicts of interest and issues of power or dependence may continue after our working relationship with a client, supervisee or trainee has formally ended.
Therefore:
a. We will exercise caution before entering into personal or business relationships with former clients
b. We will avoid sexual or intimate relationships with former clients or people close to them. Exceptionally, such a relationship will only be permissible following careful consideration in supervision and, whenever possible, following discussion with experienced colleagues or others concerned about the integrity of the counselling professions, when:
• enough time has elapsed, or the circumstances of the people concerned have sufficiently changed to establish a distinction between the former and proposed new relationship
• any therapeutic dynamics from the former relationship have been sufficiently resolved to enable beginning a different type of relationship. (This may not be possible with some clients or inappropriate to some therapeutic ways of working.)
• an equivalent service to the one provided by the practitioner is available to the former client, should this be wanted in future
• the practitioner has taken demonstrable care in ensuring that the new relationship has integrity and is not exploitative
c. We will be professionally accountable if the relationship becomes detrimental to the former client or damages the standing of the profession.
Professional Misconduct
Allegations 3.1 (a) and/or 3.1 (b) and/or 4.1 (a) and/or 4.1 (b) and/or 4.1 (c) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure.
Evidence
Witness Evidence
16. The Tribunal received evidence on behalf of BACP in the form of:
a. Oral evidence from […] who also gave a written statement dated 5 December Year 2.
17. The Tribunal received evidence on behalf of the Member in the form of:
a. A letter dated 20 February Year 2 from the Member to the BACP in response to the complaint.
Documentary Evidence
18. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included but was not limited to:
a. From the BACP:
i. The original complaint by […].
ii. Screenshots of electronic messages between the Member and […] and […] Facebook Friends activity for 12 June Year 1.
iii. Correspondence between the BACP and […].
b. From the Member:
i. Evidence of […] .
Facts and Professional Misconduct
The Panel’s Approach to Facts
19. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the BACP and it is for the BACP to prove the Allegations. The Member does not need to prove anything. The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities, or whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred.
20. The Panel also reminded itself it should not draw any inference from the Member’s decision not to attend the hearing and not to renew this membership with the BACP.
21. The Panel has borne in mind that it should not start with an assumption or presumption that a witness is credible or telling the truth. Where there are fundamentally incompatible versions of events, the Panel can determine credibility and reliability against:
a. the background of any admissions by the parties as to what took place
b. the contemporaneous documents
c. any consistencies and inconsistencies in their evidence
d. the weight to be attached to their evidence
e. the Member's good character.
22. […]
Findings and reasons on facts
23. On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made a number of findings of fact.
24. The Panel found […] evidence credible. She was consistent in her oral and written testimony and did not embellish her previous accounts when questioned. Her accounts were internally consistent and balanced, accepting where she had benefited from her time with the Member.
Allegation 1 – UPHELD
Allegation 1.1 – Proved
25. The Panel concluded from […] and oral evidence that she did not feel listened to in sessions with the Member. She felt that there was ‘not enough room for me’ in the sessions and she had been surprised by the amount of their time together that the Member spent talking about himself. The Panel found that the Member made personal disclosures during […] sessions about his […], the impact of that on [...](who he named), about his business interests and about his […] as a career.
26. The Panel accepted […] evidence that the Member had given her advice about how she could take care of herself […] and that this aspect of the sessions was appropriate. However, it concluded that the majority of the session time was used by the Member to discuss matters that were of little if any therapeutic benefit for the Complainant.
27. The Panel found allegation 1.1 proved.
Allegation 1.2 – Proved
28. The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraphs 7 and 33(a) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It concluded that the Member spent an excessive amount of time in […] sessions on personal disclosures and minimal time on therapeutically beneficial work. As such, […] was not the primary focus of the sessions. It also found that the excessive disclosures demonstrated inadequate professional boundaries, which were inconsistent with working with […], who was left feeling not listened to.
29. The Panel concluded that the Member had acted in contravention of paragraphs 7 and 33(a) and that allegation 2.2 was proved in full.
Allegation 2 – UPHELD IN PART
Allegation 2.1 – Proved
30. The Panel accepted [..] evidence and found that the Member told […] that she was ‘decent looking’ and had a kind and caring personality, or words to that effect. It considered the Member’s response that ‘Everything […] states is false’ but, in the absence of an alternative account of what happened, and noting […] consistency in her evidence and the detailed description of how the comments made her feel, it preferred […] evidence over the Member’s response.
31. The Panel therefore found allegation 2.1 proved.
Allegation 2.2 – Proved in part
32. The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraph 33(a) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. Applying its professional experience, the Panel concluded that the ‘decent looking’ comment to a client in an emotionally vulnerable condition was wholly inappropriate. It accepted […] evidence of how that comment made her feel and from this concluded that it amounted to a breach of paragraph 33(a). The Panel found that the reference to […] being kind and caring was within an acceptable scope of practice.
Allegation 3 – UPHELD
Allegation 3.1 – Proved
33. The Panel accepted […] evidence that the Member knew the Complainant was an […] and ran her own business, which was confirmed by the Member’s response in which he made such references. It concluded the stem of allegation 3.1 was proved.
34. The Panel also found 3.1(a) and (b) proved. It accepted […] evidence that the Member invited her to do work for a charity he was connected with and to speak to his […], the latter being corroborated by the electronic messages in evidence.
Allegation 3.2 – Proved
35. The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraphs 7, 33(a) and 33(b) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. Again, it concluded that the Member spent an excessive amount of time in […] sessions on personal disclosures and minimal time on therapeutically beneficial work. As such, […] was not the primary focus of the sessions, and the Member had therefore breached paragraph 7.
36. The Panel also found that the excessive personal disclosures demonstrated inadequate professional boundaries. It found these to be inconsistent with working with […]. It accepted her evidence that she told the Member that she was struggling with her workload but was a people pleaser so often took on more than she should. It concluded that in the circumstances it was inappropriate, and not beneficial to […], for the Member to attempt to add to […] already overwhelming work burden for the benefit of his own organisations. It also considered it inappropriate for the Member to introduce […] to his family. The Panel considered that the blurring of boundaries by the Member, put […] at risk of harm, was manipulative and led to the establishment of dual relationships.
37. The Panel concluded that the fact found amounted to a breach of paragraphs 7, 33(a) and 33(b).
Allegation 4 – UPHELD
Allegation 4.1 – Proved
38. The Panel found that the therapeutic relationship between […] and the Member ended on/around 22 May Year 1. It accepted […] evidence that she told the member through Instagram that she was cancelling their last session and he responded that they could now be friends. The Panel accepted her evidence and found that before then there was no discussion of endings, and the Member and […] had a further session booked.
39. The Panel accepted the documentary evidence, and […] evidence that she and the Member were Facebook friends until she removed him from her friends list on 12 June Year 1. It also accepted her evidence that she continued to communicate with the Member on Instagram after 22 May Year 1 and met him for coffee on 24 May Year 1 and at a local brewery for a drink on 4 June Year 1 during which they kissed. After the Member cancelled a further meeting, […] sent her message dated 10 June Year 1, which was in evidence.
40. The Panel therefore found allegations 4.1(a), (b) and (c) proved.
Allegation 4.2 – Proved
41. The Panel then applied its above findings to paragraphs 37(a), 37(b) and 37(c) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It found that the Member’s conduct had amounted to continuing a personal relationship with a former client. It drew an inference from the lack of time between the end of the therapeutic relationship and the personal communications and meetings that the Member did not exercise caution, give careful consideration to continuing the relationship or take advice in supervision. It accepted […] evidence of the harm she experienced and found that the continuance of the relation could and did lead to harm to […].
42. The Panel found the Members actions after 22 May Year 1 amounted to breaches of paragraphs 37(a) and 37(b). It concluded that 37(c) is not really drafted as a professional standard, but that by not engaging with the complaint, the Member had not been professionally accountable for his actions. [Amended – see para 53 below]
The Panel’s Approach to Professional Misconduct
43. The Tribunal reminded itself that the Professional Conduct Procedure defines professional misconduct as '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 reminded itself that the professional standards expected are set out in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions …
44. The Panel had regard to the relevant case law which assists in relation to the meaning of misconduct including:
a. Doughty v GDC [1988] AC 164 where misconduct was stated to be conduct that has: “fallen short, by omission or commission, of the standards of conduct expected…, and that such falling short as is established should be serious.”
b. Roylance v GMC [2000]1 AC 311 where misconduct was described as: “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances.”
c. Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 in which Mr Justice Collins observed that in other contexts it has been referred to as: "conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners."
Findings and reasons on professional misconduct
45. BACP submitted that allegations 3.1 (a) and/or 3.1 (b) and/or 4.1 (a) and/or 4.1 (b) and/or 4.1 (c) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure.
46. The Panel was of the view that the serious boundaries breaches and lack of insight demonstrated by the Member posed a real and ongoing risk to the public and, as such, a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the BACP may be warranted. It concluded that allegations 3.1 (a) and/or 3.1 (b) and/or 4.1 (a) and/or 4.1 (b) and/or 4.1 (c) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure.
[…]
47. […]
[…]
48. […]
49. […]
50. […]
[…]
51. […]
Decision on Sanction
52. The Panel reconvened on 11 November Year 3 to determine the appropriate sanction (if any) to impose on the former Member. The Panel noted that the former Member is no longer a member of BACP, however, had they been, the Panel would have imposed a sanction as follows:
53. The Panel noted as a preliminary issue that its findings contained an error at Paragraphs 41 and 42 above in that they refer to breaches of Paragraph 33 of the Ethical Framework rather than Paragraph 37 as alleged in Allegation 4.2. The Panel determined that those references should be amended to properly reflect its findings.
54. It reminded itself of its findings above and the provisions of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and BACP Protocol 14 Guidance on Sanctions. It noted that the former Member has been invited to make submissions on sanction but has not done so.
55. In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful of public protection and raising and maintaining standards of practice. It considered the following factors to be relevant:
Aggravating factors:
• The Member abused his position of trust.
• The Complainant was a vulnerable client.
• The Member has not engaged with the investigation process.
• The Member has not demonstrated any insight into his conduct.
Mitigating factors:
• The Member has no previous findings against him.
56. The Panel considered that in view of the former Member’s serious breach of trust and lack of insight into his conduct, he continues to pose a risk of harm to the public and to the reputation of the counselling profession.
57. The Panel considered therefore that the following sanction was fair and proportionate, given the allegations upheld in this case:
The former Member is suspended from membership of the Association for a period of 18 months.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)