June 2023: Brenda Bicknell, Reference No: 00532262 Registrant ID: 76174
The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting […] met on […] remotely via Microsoft Teams to
consider the complaint made by […] (the Complainant) against Brenda Bicknell (formerly Capaldi) (the Member), a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) individual member.
In attendance were […] (Clerks’ Assistant [formally referred to as Case Manager], and […](Clerk to the Panel).
The Complainant was accompanied by […] (Professional Supporter). The Member was not in attendance.
Summary
1. The Complainant has complained about Brenda Bicknell (nee Capaldi), an individual Member of BACP.
2. The Complainant states that she received therapeutic services from the Member between 31 July Year 1 and 7 February Year 2, the first session on an individual basis and the subsequent ones […] The Member was one of the therapists suggested by the Complainant and her […], who had suggested […]. The Complainant recalls that the Member mentioned she was a member of the counselling profession as part of her introduction.
3. The Complainant complains that the Member was not impartial and was judgmental and unfair and had not properly investigated the root cause of certain issues.
4. The Complainant says that the Member provided advice which promoted unhealthy communication, including a suggestion that the parties […] should get joint passports rather than the Complainant holding their passports as was the case at present. The Complainant considers that this led to more distrust and increased the chance of conflict going forward.
5. Following some confusion over the appointment of 25 October Year 1, the Complainant says that the Member ‘screeched on the phone ’to the Complainant,
stating that the Complainant was an adult who should confirm appointments. The Member told the Complainant that if she did not attend, she would report that the Complainant was not committed to the process. The Complainant says she was “very scared” by this.
6. The Complainant says that she was stunned by the Member’s tone. She felt she was being threatened, like a ‘child being scolded’. She told this to the Member at a meeting between her and the Member on 12 November Year 1 to discuss her concerns, to which the Member replied that she was ‘acting like a child’. The Complainant told the Member that she ‘no longer felt that this was a safe, secure and supported environment ’for her to raise her concerns and that she felt she was being pre-judged. However she agreed to continue to attend the sessions.
7. Following the pre-meeting in (6) above, the Complainant states that she was upset and but says the Member continued with the joint session although the Complainant was reduced to tears and in a vulnerable state.
8. The Complainant states that, at the session on 25 October Year 1 , the Member suggested bringing the parties’ […] into the process with no real evidence as to why they should be involved.
9. The Complainant felt that some of the Member’s comments to her dismissed her concerns and perspectives and deemed them as not important. The comments demonstrated that the Member did not respect what the Complainant had to say and almost “ridiculed” her. She felt that the Member’s focus was on her [Z] perspective and that her own did not matter.
10.The Complainant considers that the Member’s behaviour towards the Complainant was different to her behaviour towards the Complainant’s [Z] with regard to appointment times. For example, when the Complainant wanted to end a session slightly early, the Member accused the Complainant via text message of wanting to ‘‘change the goal post yet again. This seems indicative that that you’re not engaged in the process”. The Complainant said that despite having significant […] issues, that she had explained to the Member, she felt “petrified” even to suggest cancelling the session on 12 November. She says the Member’s tone used, and the accusation that the Complainant was not committed was unfounded, and the tone in her message felt like a signal that the Member had the ‘‘power to change the course [of her] future’ ’by stating she was not committed, despite the Complainant trying hard to keep the appointments. The Complainant says that when her [Z] asked to leave a session 5-10 minutes early, the Member agreed saying it was “no problem”.
11.Some of the Member’s comments contradicted what was agreed before, making it hard to come to resolution. This promoted distrust leading to more potential conflict.
12.When the parties reverted to text messaging due to COVID-19, the Complainant felt that the Member agreed matters raised by her [Z] without exploring or validating the accusations he was making. For example her [Z] raised a concern about how […] had “named” him on their phone and the Member stated that this was why the […] would have benefitted from being part of this process and that the […] use of this term was both “damaging” and “very worrying for his emotional state”. The Complainant considers that these were ‘‘unfounded judgements and conclusions that could affect the course of a […] and which could be detrimental and life changing to a person, based on no evidence and without investigation”.
13.After the sessions ended, the Member stated she would write a report on her assessment of the sessions and send it to the Complainant, her [Z] , the parties’ […]. The Complainant says that the Member was not authorised or instructed by any of these parties to write a report, nor did the Complainant waive her confidentiality rights to a third party or sign anything to this effect. The Complainant believes this is a breach of confidentiality. She says the Member did not communicate the terms and conditions of the process nor did she have agreement or consent on how the confidential information would be used or accessed as required by the Ethical Framework.
14. In her preliminary response, the Member ‘strongly denies’ that her conduct merits any complaint whatsoever, and ‘in addition considers that the Complainant has no justification to seek recourse from BACP’. She states that this complaint is not a matter for BACP and should be summarily rejected.
15. The Member states that her ‘‘function in this case was not acting in the position as Counsellor/Psychotherapist but as a Collaborative Consultant providing mediation for a separated couple’’, for which she had received training from […] and IACP. When acting as a Collaborative Consultant, the Member does not offer or profess to offer counselling or psychotherapeutic services. If such therapy is required, then it is sought outside of the collaborative process and this is made clear to clients at the outset by both their […] and the Collaborative Consultant.
16. The Member says her role was to determine if any improvements can be achieved for […] when […] are in conflict, to determine if any […] is taking place, and that it is also made clear to all parties that transparency is uppermost and no ‘secrets’ are kept by the Member.
17. The Member states that she will not discuss the case on any level as it ‘‘appears there is a covert discount of Mr X who was also involved in this process’’.
Allegations
Allegation 1
1.1 There was no written contract between the Complainant and 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 the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:
32. We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to:
b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context
c. stating clearly how a client’s confidentiality and privacy will be protected and any circumstances in which confidential or private information will be communicated to others
d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed.
Allegation 2
2.1 Failed to respect the privacy and dignity of the Complainant by sending inappropriate written messages to the Complainant and/or by threatening without the consent of the Complainant to write a report.
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 Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:
12. We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust.
21. We will respect our clients ’privacy and dignity.
Allegation 3
3.1 Failed to respond appropriately, or at all, to the Complainant after the Complainant had raised concerns with the Member.
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 Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:
52. We will ensure candour by being open and honest about anything going wrong and promptly inform our clients of anything in our work that places clients at risk of harm, or has caused them harm, whether or not the client(s) affected are aware of what has occurred by:
a. taking immediate action to prevent or limit any harm
b. repairing any harm caused, so far as possible c. offering an apology when this is appropriate.
Documents and evidence before the Panel
The Panel was provided with the following written materials:
• The decision and papers of the Investigation and Assessment Committee.
• The formal response submitted by the Member Complained Against.
• Further information provided by the parties.
• The relevant Ethical Frameworks.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and supporting documentation.
The Panel read all of the above, then questioned, and listened to the verbal evidence provided by the Complainant.
The Panel had to consider the following:
• The allegations made.
• The written and verbal evidence.
• What weight should be attached to the evidence.
• On balance, whether the complaints should be upheld.
Preliminary matters
The Panel noted that the Member was not in attendance. It bore in mind that the Member had previously emailed BACP to state that she would not be attending at any disciplinary hearing and that this had been considered by a Panel on […] in accordance with Paragraph 5.9. of the Professional Conduct Procedure. At that hearing, it had been decided that it would be “fair and reasonable and in the public interest” to continue in the Member’s absence. The Panel considered, therefore, that this point had already been determined. It noted that the Member had been informed of the decision and had had the opportunity to attend today should she have wished to do so.
Findings
On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:
Allegation 1
The Panel noted that the Member had not provided a written contract for the sessions with the Complainant and her [Z]. This had been confirmed by both the Member in her submissions, and by the Complainant.
It was clear that there was some confusion between the parties about the exact nature of the sessions and the Panel considered that this could have been avoided if more detailed information had been provided by the Member about her role at the outset, including, potentially, a written contract.
However, the Panel also took into account that, under the Ethical Framework, there was no specific obligation on a Member to provide a written contract and, for that reason, although it found the allegation to be factually correct, it did not consider that it could amount to a breach of the Ethical Framework. On that basis it did not find Allegation 1 proved.
Allegation 2
The Panel reviewed the various messages sent by the Member to the Complainant, including the messages of 12 November Year 1, and 26 and 27 March Year 2. The Panel considered that at times the Member’s tone in these messages towards the Complainant was inappropriate as for example “ Now at this late stage you want to change the goal posts yet again. This seems indicative that you’re not engaged in this process and in fact and it isn’t serving your needs. I could only then suggest that you and [x] would need to go to […].
The Panel was concerned that, in writing as she did, the Member had failed to respect the Complainant’s dignity or to demonstrate any understanding of, or empathy with, the Complainant in relation to her […] difficulties or her concerns about the way the sessions were being conducted. Instead she had proposed to write a report suggesting that the Complainant was not committed to the sessions even though in the Panel’s opinion this was contradicted by the steps the Complainant had taken to try and attend.
In relation to the report referred to by the Member, the Panel noted that the Member had not been instructed by the […] and as such, she had not been asked to write a report and the sessions had not been arranged on that basis. The Panel considered that, in those circumstances, it was inappropriate for the Member to suggest writing a report, for which in any event the Complainant had not given her consent and that, in making this suggestion, the Member was threatening to potentially breach the Complainant’s privacy.
The Panel noted that the three-way text messages that started in early Year 2 were initially intended to be used as a diary management tool to arrange future sessions but that subsequently, they had been used to raise other issues, such as concerns regarding the […].
The Panel was concerned that there did not appear to have been any agreement with the parties that this was a suitable channel of communication for such issues. Further it noted that the Member continued to use this channel of communication even after the Complainant had raised her concerns. For these reasons, the Panel considered the form and content of these messages to have been inappropriate and to have breached the Complainant’s privacy. Allegation 2 was, therefore, found proved in its entirety
Allegation 3
The Panel noted that the Complainant had raised concerns about the sessions on several occasions. These included concerns about the Member’s approach and the impact this was having on the Complainant, as well as concerns about the form in which some issues were being discussed.
The Panel acknowledged that following concerns raised by the Complainant on 6 November Year 1, the Member agreed to meet with her prior to the session of 12 November. It considered that this was an appropriate response at that time.
However, it was concerned that during this meeting the Member appeared not to acknowledge the Complainant’s concerns, both practical with regards to […], and emotional in respect of the sessions. The Member did not appear to have shown empathy with the Complainant, or her situation, and the Panel found the tone of some of her responses to have been inappropriate.
In making this decision the Panel took into account the evidence from the Complainant. In particular it noted her concern that she had not felt heard at this meeting and that when she had said that she had been made to “feel like a child”
the Member had told her “that’s because you are acting like a child”. The Panel acknowledged that there was no objective evidence to confirm what had been said but it found the Complainant’s account to be credible and persuasive and, on that basis, it found the Member’s responses to have been inappropriate.
Further it was concerned that, subsequently the Complainant had raised other concerns about the sessions and the communication between the parties which the Member did not appear to have acknowledged. Taking this into account, the Panel was not satisfied that the Member had taken steps to address the Complainant’s concerns and to remediate any harm caused, or to apologise. It considered that, overall, the Member had failed to respond appropriately to the Complainant’s concerns and that Allegation 3 was, therefore, found proved.
Decision
Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 12, 21, and 52(a) &(b) of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in the Counselling Professions 2018.
Appeal
On receipt of the full decision both the Complainant and the Member will have a right of appeal.
Sanction
On […] the Panel reconvened to consider the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose on the Member.
The Panel considered the submissions made by the Member in a letter dated […]. The Member made no specific submissions regarding sanction but stated that she considered the process to be unfair and that it was too late to make further submissions.
In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful of public protection and raising and maintaining standards of practice.
The Panel considered the following sanction was fair and proportionate, given the allegations upheld in this case:
Within 10 weeks of being notified of this decision and subject to any appeal, the Member should submit to BACP:
1. Evidence of completion of a minimum of 6 hours CPD on effective management of complaints, and a minimum of 6 hours CPD on effective communication with clients including protecting their privacy and dignity.
2. A reflective statement addressing her understanding of what went wrong in this case, her learning from the CPD and from the complaint and how she has changed her practice as a result. The statement should demonstrate an understanding of the harm caused to the Complainant, the reputation of the BACP and to the wider profession. The Member should provide evidence that this reflection has been discussed with her supervisor.
3. A genuine and sincere letter of apology addressed to the Complainant identifying and taking responsibility for her errors, recognising the impact on the client and on the counselling profession, and addressing her learning from the CPD undertaken.
Publication
Neither party raised objections in relation to publication of the decision. Accordingly, subject to any appeal, the decision of the Professional Conduct Panel will be published in accordance with the BACP's Publication Policy.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)