July 2024: I-P, Reference No: 00101407

July Month 2024: Inter-Psyche, Reference No: 00101407

The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of […] met on […]remotely via MS Teams to consider the complaint brought by […] (Complainant) against Inter-Psyche (the Member), a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) organisational member.

Also in attendance were […] and […] (Clerk’s Assistants) and […] (Clerk to the Panel).

The Member was present and represented by […] who was supported by […]. The Complainant was present and supported by […].

Summary

An Investigation and Assessment Committee (IAC) previously considered the complaint and the information provided by the Complainant and the Member and decided that the following allegation met the Proceedings Test.

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member failed to provide appropriate feedback to the Complainant in that they:

a) Provided inadequate feedback during the course; and/or

b) Gave inconsistent feedback regarding the decision not to allow the Complainant to progress to the Diploma.

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:

76 (Any selection of students will be fair, respectful and transparent to candidates and use procedures designed to select suitable students) and/or

77 (Any assessments of students will be fair, respectful and provide reasoned explanations for the outcome to the students).

Preliminary matter

The Complainant had submitted an application for the admission of covert recordings. This application was opposed to by the Member.

The Clerk referred the Panel to paragraph 4.9 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and the explanatory Guidance on the admissibility of recordings British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. The Clerk advised the Panel that it may admit any oral, documentary or other evidence, which would include the recordings if it considered that to do so would be fair and the evidence contained therein would be relevant.

The Panel took oral submissions from and questioned the parties.

The Panel concluded that as the recordings were of meetings between the Complainant and representatives of the Member at which the reasons for the decision not to allow her to progress to the Diploma course were discussed the recordings were relevant to allegation 1.1(b).

The Panel noted the Member’s submission that during these meetings the Complainant agreed not to take the matter further. It concluded that the BACP is not bound by this informal agreement and that it would not be in the interests of justice to prevent the Complainant pursuing her complaint with the Member’s regulator on the basis of that agreement.

The Panel concluded that the interests of justice in having as much information about what was said in these meetings as possible outweighed the possible detriment to the Member of them being recorded without consent. Any detriment could be addressed through weighing of the evidence by the Panel.

The Panel decided that the recordings were relevant, and it was fair to admit them.

Documents and evidence before the Panel

The Panel was provided with the following written materials:

• The original complaint and all information submitted by the Complainant.

• The formal response submitted by the Member Complained Against.

• Further information provided by the parties including the covert recordings made by the Complainant.

• The relevant Ethical Framework(s) (EF).

• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel read all the above, then received oral evidence from the parties and witness [..] who were questioned by the Panel.

The Panel had to consider the following:

• The allegations made.
• The written and oral evidence.
• What weight should be attached to the evidence.
• On balance, whether the complaints should be upheld.

Findings

Allegation 1 – UPHELD

Allegation 1.1(a) – PROVED

The Panel took into consideration the Member’s acceptance that it had failed to provide appropriate feedback to the Complainant in that it provided inadequate feedback to her during the course. It also took into consideration the Member’s internal investigation that found that there had been inadequate feedback to the Complainant during the course. The Panel found that the parties’ evidence showed that the Complainant had not been made aware of any significant shortcomings during the course and that she was first made aware of concerns about her performance as justifications for refusing to allow her to progress immediately onto the Diploma course.

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

The Panel took into consideration the Member’s submission about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it noted the period in question was October Year 2 to June Year 3. The COVID-19 pandemic had started in March Year 1, so by October Year 2, it was reasonable to expect the Member to have established effective remote working arrangements in the delivery of its courses. The Panel therefore concluded that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic provided little mitigation for this failing.

Allegation 1.1(b) –PROVED

The Panel found from the Member’s admissions, the Complainant’s evidence and the recordings of extracts of the two meeting that the Member had provided different and increasingly numerous reasons to the Complainant on each occasion that it had sought to justify the decision not to allow her to proceed immediately to the Diploma course. It found that she was initially told it was because she was not showing warmth, then she was told she was not reflecting, then she lacked empathy and finally that she was not connecting with others. The Panel found that the Member provided these in a ‘drip feeding’ manner; each additional reason being given when the Complainant provided documentary evidence to show she had been assessed during the course as satisfactory in the areas now being criticised.

The Panel also found that the Member had breached its own policies: the progress report that the Member said should have been available to […] when he interviewed the Complainant for the Diploma course, but it post-dated the interview; the Member did not give the Complainant written reasons for not progressing her immediately; the Member failed to provide the expected amount of written feedback and tutorial feedback during the course.

The Panel concluded that, in giving differing reasons to the Complainant over a period of time, the Member gave inconsistent feedback regarding its decision not to allow the Complainant to progress to the Diploma.

The Panel therefore found Allegation 1.1(b) proved.

Allegation 1.2 – PROVED

The Panel then applied its findings in relation to Allegation 1.1 to paragraphs 76 and 77 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

The Panel found that the failing at paragraph 1.1(a) did not amount to a breach of paragraph 76 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 because it was not a selection process. However, it found that this failing did breach paragraph 77 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 because the Member had not provided feedback to its own published standards.

The Panel concluded the failing at paragraph 1.1(b) amounted to a breach of paragraphs 76 and 77 of ‘Good Practice’ in the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.The Member did not provide the Complainant with adequate information about the selection process for it to be considered open and transparent, took into consideration criticisms that had not been disclosed to the Complainant by way of feedback and failed to provide her with written reasons, which the Member accepted was normal practice.

The Panel concluded this amounted to a failure to be fair, respectful and transparent to candidates, a failure to use the Member’s own procedures, unfair and disrespectful assessment and a failure to provide reasoned explanations for the outcome.

It therefore found Allegation 1.2 proved.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Complainant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member had failed to comply with Professional Standards, in particular paragraphs 76 and 77 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 4 March Year 5 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate having taken into consideration the Member’s sanction representations.

The Panel reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within BACP Protocol on Sanctions (PR14) and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel noted that the Member submitted that it already had adequate and appropriate measures and processes in place but had failed to adhere to these in this case. It decided that the Member needed to demonstrate that it had systems in place to monitor compliance with processes, including quality assurance and feedback processes. It also needed to communicate its processes openly to students by redrafting relevant parts of its course handbook. In addition, the Panel considered a letter of apology to the Complainant was appropriate.

The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to provide the BACP with the following within 12 weeks of the date of this letter:

1. A written statement and documentary evidence demonstrating it had made changes to its systems and documentation to:

a. transparently communicate to students:

i. the selection process for entry to courses;

ii. what level of support and feedback to expect during the course.

b. monitor staff compliance with its policies.

2. A letter of apology addressed to the Complainant, reflecting on what went wrong in her case, and acknowledging the harm these failings caused.

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