July 2026: DP, Membership Number 00723475, Registrant ID 384758

July 2026: Daniel Peers, Membership Number 00723475, Registrant ID 384758

Attendees:

1. The Member Daniel Peers attended and was not represented. He was supported by […].

2. The Association was represented by […], Solicitor.

Introduction:

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

Background:

4. On 6 February 2023, BACP received a referral from […], of […] (the Referrer), advising that Daniel Peers (the Member) had been dismissed following a disciplinary hearing on 29 November 2022. At that hearing the Member was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct for breaching the organisation’s safeguarding code of conduct and failing to report incidents and concerns.

5. The Member’s employers identified a number of concerns following an audit of his cases. These related to incidents where he had failed to escalate safeguarding concerns in relation to young clients. These were put to him at disciplinary meetings and he was subsequently dismissed as a result.

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of Allegation:

6. At the outset of the hearing, […] on behalf of the Association made an application to amend Allegation 1 pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP).

7. She submitted that the proposed amendment, to replace the initials of the clients in the allegations with Client 1, Client 2, Client 3 and Client 4 would provide greater anonymity to the clients. She also invited the Panel to admit to evidence a schedule of anonymity and a brief statement from the Referrer confirming that the anonymised details referred to the relevant clients.

8. The Member had no objection to the proposed amendments or the confirmation from the Referrer being admitted.

9. The Panel Clerk advised that the Panel has the power to amend allegations under paragraph 4.12 of the PCP where it considers that it is fair and just to do so.

10. The Panel decided to allow the proposed amendment and to admit the Referrer’s confirmation of the identification of the clients. It considered that the amendments would provide greater anonymity to the clients and would not change the substance of the allegations or cause any unfairness to the Member.

The Allegations

11. The Allegations made against the Member (as amended) are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 Whilst working with […[, the Member failed to escalate safeguarding concerns in relation to one or more of the following young people:

i. Client 1, who expressed suicidal ideation to the Member; and/or

ii. Client 2, who advised the Member that he had stolen a moped and left home carrying a knife; and/or

iii. Client 3, who disclosed self-harm to the Member; and/or

iv. Client 4, who discussed suicidal ideation and thoughts of self-harm with the Member.

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 Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 27c (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: demonstrates a sound knowledge of the law relevant to working with children and young people and their human rights).

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to keep records of sessions with clients which were accurate and/or adequate for the service being provided.

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 Good Practice in the 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 The Member failed to notify BACP that he:

i. Was subject to disciplinary proceedings brought by his employers; and/or
ii. Had been dismissed by his employers for gross misconduct.

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 Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 47 (We will promptly notify this Association about any criminal charges or disciplinary procedures brought against us.)

Admissions:

12. Following the reading of the allegations the Panel Chair asked the Member whether he admitted any of the allegations.

13. The Member informed the Panel that he admitted all factual allegations in full. He also admitted that all factual allegations amounted to breaches of BACP Professional Standards as alleged.

Documentary Evidence

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

An 8 page bundle submitted by the Association, consisting of the referral and Witness Statement from […].

A 34 page bundle submitted by the Member including:

• His response to the complaint.
• A number of professional references.
• Notes of the disciplinary meeting with his former employer.
• The letter of dismissal.
• Correspondence with the Association.
• Medical Evidence.

Consensual Resolution

15. Having considered the documentary evidence and the Member’s admissions, the Panel invited the parties to consider whether the matter could be resolved by Consensual Resolution in accordance with Paragraph 5.8b of the PCP.

16. Following discussions between them, the parties proposed terms of a Consensual Resolution. The Panel having considered the terms agreed by the parties, decided that the proposed resolution represented a fair and proportionate outcome of the case. It therefore decided that it was appropriate to conclude the matter by way of the Consensual Resolution proposed.

Agreed Sanction

17. The Member agreed, within two months of being notified of this decision, to provide to BACP a reflective statement which addresses the following:

a. His learning from this case and from each of the allegations admitted.

b. The changes he has made to his practice since these events with particular reference to:

i. How he has implemented his safeguarding training, learning and knowledge into his day to day work.
ii. His awareness of the impact of personal issues on his work with clients and how he manages this.

c. Details of the rationale for his decision making at the time, highlighting his understanding of where he fell short and how he has changed his practice both immediately afterwards at […] and in subsequent employment.

d. How he now implements risk assessment, safety planning, escalating risk, and addressing suicide and self-harm in his work.

e. Details and evidence of professional training undertaken relevant to those areas, and his learning from that training.

Mitigation

18. The Panel accepted as mitigation that the Member had been going through difficult personal circumstances at the time of the events which led to these allegations and balanced this against the conduct alleged when considering proportionality.

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