Professional Conduct notice / MW

January 2026: Morag West, Reference No 00767459, Registrant ID 95573

Attendees:

1. The Member did not attend and was not represented.

2. The BACP case was presented by […] (Counsel).

3. The referring organisation, […], sent a representative to give witness evidence.

Introduction:

4. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.
[…]

5. […]:
[…].
[…]
[…]
[…]

6. The Member provided an initial response to the BACP complaint by email on 26 November Year 1 and 29 January Year 2 but has not fully engaged since. Her responses contained admissions, details of her personal circumstances at the relevant time acknowledgements of failings, and apologies.

Preliminary matters

Proceeding in absence:

7. The Panel previously met on 13 June Year 3 when it decided to proceed with today’s hearing in the absence of the Member. Its reasons were set out in the notice of that decision.

Additional evidence:

8. […], on behalf of the BACP, applied to add the Member’s initial response to the complaint (emails dated 26 November Year 1 and 29 January Year 2) to the Association papers. The Panel considered the application under paragraph 4.9 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

9. […]

10. The Panel granted the application.

Amendment of allegation:

11. The Panel, of its own volition, decided to amend the allegation, pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure to correct the misnumbering of allegation 1. It concluded there was no detriment to either party in correcting this typographic error.

The Allegations

12. The Allegations made against the Member are as follows. […]:

Allegation 1

1.1 Between 25 January Year 1 to 12 July Year 1, the Member failed to deliver services to appropriate professional standards in that:

a) in relation to various clients she

i. failed to attend pre-arranged sessions, and/or

ii. was uncontactable by clients who were left feeling unsupported, and / or

iii. constantly cancelled follow up sessions with clients, despite such clients frequently trying to contact the Member, and/ or

iv. failed to re-arrange the cancelled sessions with clients.
and /or

b) she failed to communicate appropriately with her contracting organisation, […], despite a number of attempts by […] to contact her, by telephone and by email, between 22 June and 5 July Year 1.

1.2. 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 BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

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

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.

56. Professional relationships will be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect. We will endeavour to build good working relationships and systems of communication that enhance services to clients.

Allegation 2

2.1. Following an initial session with a client, Client 2, on 1 March Year 1, the next session was postponed as the client was on holiday, but the Member incorrectly recorded this second session as “did not attend” which resulted in the Member being incorrectly paid for this session.

2.2 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 BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

15. We will keep accurate records that:
• are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided
• comply with the applicable data protection requirements – see www.ico.org.uk.

Allegation 3

3.1. Between 25 January Year 1 and 13 July Year 1, the Member did not adequately monitor her health, or take into account the impact of her health at this time on her practice or on her clients.

3.2. 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 BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

18. We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients – see 91 Care of self as a practitioner

91. We will take responsibility for our own wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by: . . .

b. monitoring and maintaining our own psychological and physical health, particularly that we are sufficiently resilient and resourceful to undertake our work in ways that satisfy professional standards . . .

Admissions

13. The Member’s response accepted she had not fully supported some of her […] clients at the time in question and took ‘full ownership’ of that. She said she ‘failed [her]self, some of the […] clients fellow members of BACP and reputation of BACP’.

Evidence

Witness Evidence

14. […] gave evidence on behalf of […].

Documentary Evidence

15. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included but was not limited to:
a. Witness statements from […] and […].
b. Copies of emails sent to the Member and her reply on 13 July Year 1.
c. Copies of […] internal investigation.

Facts

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

16. 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

Allegation 1

17. In relation to allegation 1.1(a) the Panel gave particular weight to the call log entries reproduced at pages 22-23 of the hearing bundle. In relation to each sub-allegation it found:

i. The Member failed to attend pre-arranged sessions with Clients 1, 3, 4 and 7.

ii. The Member was uncontactable by Clients 1-8. The Panel drew an inference that the clients being unable to proceed with the Member and being either reallocated or taking their business elsewhere would have caused them to feel unsupported.

iii. The Member cancelled follow up sessions with Clients 3 and 7, despite such clients frequently trying to contact the Member.

iv. The Member failed to re-arrange the cancelled sessions with Clients 1, 3, 4 and 6.

18. The Panel concluded that allegation 1.1(a) was proved.

19. From the evidence in […] investigation report and referral, the Panel found that […] tried to contact the Member by phone on 20, 22 and 23 June and 5 July Year 1 without success. […] also emailed the Member on 20 and 22 June Year 1 but received no reply. It emailed her again on 12 July Year 1 and the member replied the next day. It therefore concluded that allegation 1.1(b) was proved.

20. The Panel then applied these findings to paragraphs 12, 13 and 56 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It concluded that the Member’s failings in relation to her clients set out at allegation 1.1(a) breached paragraph 12 and her failings in relation to […] breached paragraph 56. However, it did not find the Member was not competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental standards. It agreed that this matter was not about the member’s ability, knowledge or skill. It found allegation 1.2 proved in part.

Allegation 2

21. The Panel accepted the call record from Client 2 stating that they had been on holiday the two weeks after their first session on 1 March Year 1 and […] evidence that the Member had recorded this second session as ‘did not attend’ and that this inaccuracy resulted in her being paid for the session. It concluded that allegation 2.1 was proved.

22. The Panel applied these findings to paragraph 15 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It concluded that the Member had not kept accurate records and, by being inaccurate the records were not adequate to what is necessary for the type of service being provided and did not comply with the applicable data protection requirements. It found allegation 2.2 proved.

Allegation 3

23. The Panel relied on the Member’s correspondence with […] on 13 July Year 1 and with BACP on 26 November Year 1. It accepted her evidence that her personal circumstances had impacted on her health and wellbeing to the extent that some days she was ‘unable to function fully’ and that she ‘did not pick up on the fact [she] was becoming ill’. It found that she had sought help from a medical professional but had continued to see clients. The Panel concluded that allegation 3.1 was proved.

24. The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 18 and 91(b) of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It found that the Member’s failure to have adequate insight into her condition on systems in place to objectively monitor her health was a breach of paragraphs 18 and 91(b). It concluded allegation 3.1 was proved.

Decision

25. The Panel concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:

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

18. We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients – see 91 Care of self as a practitioner

56. Professional relationships will be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect. We will endeavour to build good working relationships and systems of communication that enhance services to clients.

91. We will take responsibility for our own wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by: . . .

Sanction

26. The Panel reconvened on 6 November Year 3 to determine what sanction, if any, it would impose, sanction being a matter for the Panel’s judgment.

27. The Panel had before no representations from the former Member for it to consider on the question of sanction. The Panel was satisfied that BACP had provided the former Member with the Panel’s written determination of the hearing of 11 August Year 3 and decided that, in light of the former Member’s failure to engage with the hearing of 11 August Year 3, it was fair to proceed to consider sanction in the absence of any representations from the former Member.

28. The Panel reminded itself of the findings of fact it had made and its decisions on breaches 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.

29. Paragraph 5.12 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 and one or more of the allegations is found proved.

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.

30. 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.

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

32. The Panel found mitigating factors to be that the former Member:

(a) accepted that she had not fully supported some of her […] clients at the time in question and took ‘full ownership’ of that, and
(b) said she ‘failed [her]self, some of the[…] clients, fellow members of BACP and reputation of BACP.’

33. The Panel found the aggravating factors to be:
(a) the former Member’s failure to engage with […], and
(b) that the former Member’s conduct involved a number of […] clients.

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

35. The Panel went on to consider whether a written apology would be an appropriate sanction and concluded that, as a number of […] clients were affected by the Member’s conduct, this was not propionate.

36. The Panel next considered whether, on its own, a requirement to demonstrate change would be sufficient but determined that it required the former Member to undertake appropriate and focused training before she would be in a position to demonstrate change/improvement.

Decision on Sanction

37. The Panel therefore determined to impose the following sanction:

Within 12 weeks of receipt of this decision to provide to BACP:

(1) Evidence of completion of a minimum of a total of 6 hours of continuing professional development on:

(a) accurate record keeping and/or data protection, and

(b) client relationships and using supervision as a tool to monitor and maintain her own health

The former Member is to provide evidence of her undertaking CPD in the form of certificates of completion of course(s) and/or a log of her reading of relevant materials or her personal study.

(2) Having completed the above training to provide to BACP a written document setting out what went wrong in this case, focusing on the specific Allegations, what the former Member has learned from the training/reading/study they have taken as requested in (1) (a) and (b) above, what changes they have made to their practice, or would make to their practice if they were to return to practice, to avoid a repetition of the conduct set out in the Allegations, how they have/would embed these changes into their practice referencing the relevant parts of the Ethical Framework 2018 and the impact of her conduct on […] clients and the wider counselling professions.

In addition to the above sanction, the former Member is requested to confirm that she has discussed her CPD and her learning from the CPD with her supervisor.

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