June 2026: DC, Membership Number 00717193, Registrant ID 80922

June 2026: David Carvalho, Membership Number 00717193, Registrant ID 80922

Attendees:

1. The Member, David Carvalho, attended and was represented by […] (Counsel).

2. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) was represented by case presenter […] (Solicitor).

Introduction:

3. This is a Disciplinary Proceedings Track Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.

Background:

4. In October [Year 2], […] complained to the BACP about the Member whom she had seen for seven therapy sessions between October [Year 1] and March [Year 2].

5. […] complained about the Member’s behaviour during two of their sessions: She said he showed her a picture of a man on his phone and asked if she was ‘interested’ on 27 January [Year 2]; and on 2 March [Year 2] she suggested he’d been trying to set her up with a man in reception when she arrived.

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of Allegation:

6. The Panel granted […] application to amend the allegation, pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure.

7. […] submitted that paragraphs 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) should be amended to make them more consistent with […] evidence and clearer for the Member and the Panel.

8. […] did not object to the application.

9. The Panel took and accepted advice from the Clerk who referred them to Clause 4.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:

1. 4.12 Amendment of allegations

2. At any stage before making its findings of fact and having considered any representations by the parties as to the appropriateness of doing so, the Panel may permit or direct the amendment of the allegations.

10. The Panel decided to grant the application because it considered the amendments made the allegations clearer, did not expand the remit of the allegations and there was no identifiable prejudice to the Member. It directed allegation 1.1 be amended as follows:

1.1. The Member breached professional boundaries in that:

a) In a session on or around 27 January [Year 2], he showed the Complainant a picture of a man on his phone and asked her for her opinion of him; and/or

b) In a session on or around 2 March [Year 2], he suggested to the Complainant that he had tried to set her up with a man she had encountered in the waiting room before her session.

Late Evidence Admission:

11. The Panel considered […] application, made pursuant to paragraph 4.9c of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 to admit the Member’s notes of his seven sessions with […] and of his supervision session regarding […].

12. […] his instructing solicitors had made a written application for late evidence to be admitted and considered as part of the hearing. […] submitted that, while the evidence had existed since [Year 2], it was not identified as potentially probative until the advanced stages of preparation for the hearing. He submitted that there was no prejudice to the BACP in allowing the evidence to be admitted and it was directly relevant to the factual matters to be decided by the Panel.

13. The Case Presenter did not object to the application.

14. The Panel Clerk advised that where evidence is not submitted in accordance with case management directions issued pursuant to paragraph 4.6, as in this case, a party may apply to the Panel to admit late evidence in accordance with BACP protocol PR4 and summarised the provisions of the protocol.

15. The Panel decided to allow the application because it concluded that, while the justification for late submission was unpersuasive (professional oversight), the session and supervision notes in relation to […] could be probative in terms of context and the events at the two sessions in question and there was no identifiable prejudice to the BACP in admitting the evidence. It therefore concluded that it was in the interests of justice to allow the application.

The Allegations

16. The Allegations made against the Member are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1. The Member breached professional boundaries in that:

a) In a session on or around 27 January [Year 2], he showed the Complainant a picture of a man on his phone and asked her for her opinion of him; and/or
b) In a session on or around 2 March [Year 2], he suggested to the Complainant that he had tried to set her up with a man she had encountered in the waiting room before her session.

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:

33a - We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client; and/or

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

1.3. Allegations 1.1 a) and/or b) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1. The Member failed to provide the Complainant with a record of the contractual terms agreed.

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:

31d - 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 providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed.

Admissions:

17. Following the reading of the allegations, […] stated that the Member admitted the facts of allegation 2.1.

18. The Panel, notwithstanding the admissions, went on to consider all facts alleged.

Evidence

Witness Evidence

19. The Panel received evidence on behalf of BACP in the form of oral evidence from […], who also provided written statements.

20. The Panel received evidence on behalf of the Member in the form of eight character witness testimonials.

21. The Member also gave evidence.

Documentary Evidence

22. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included but was not limited to
a. […] complaint form and subsequent correspondence with the BACP.
b. Copies of email exchanges between […] and the Member.
c. […] witness statement.
d. The Member’s witness statement.
e. The Member’s curriculum vitae.
f. The Member’s session and supervision notes in respect of […].

Facts and Professional Misconduct

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

23. 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.

24. 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; and
c. any consistencies and inconsistencies in their evidence;
d. the weight to be attached to their evidence; and
e. the Member's good character.

Findings and Reasons on Facts

Allegation 1 – Not Upheld

25. The Panel noted the fundamental conflict of evidence between […] and the Member. It found both of their evidence, at times, understandably imprecise given the passage of time.

Allegation 1.1(a) – Not Proved

26. The Panel considered the contemporaneous evidence available – the emails between […] and the Member. It found that it was undisputed that on 14 February [Year 2], […] emailed the Member asking for another session. It found that in this email exchange, some 18 days after the 27 January [Year 2] session referred to in allegation 1(a), […] tone was friendly and relaxed, in keeping with her previous exchanges with the Member and there was nothing therein to indicate that she was unhappy with his behaviour in the previous session or that anything untoward had occurred. Based on the copy emails and […] evidence, it also found that […] made no complaint to the Member about his behaviour on 27 January [Year 2] either in this email exchange or during their next session on 2 March [Year 2]. The Panel found that […] was experienced with using counsellors.

27. The Panel also found that […] evidence about the Member’s use of his phone was inconsistent between her initial complaint, her witness statement and her oral evidence, changing from pulling his phone out, through opening it, to him using it as a timer for the session. Her account had also evolved, adding in the use of the phone as a timer and a previous incident of him alluding to a client of his who was a doctor in […] being a good match for her. While the Panel did not question that […] genuinely believed her recollection was accurate, applying the Clerk’s advice from R(on the application of Dutta) v The General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) the Panel concluded that […] evidence was inconsistent with the limited contemporaneous evidence and undisputed factual findings and found her to be an unreliable historian.

28. The Panel concluded that the BACP had not proved allegation 1.1(a) on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1.1(b) – Not proved

29. The Panel found that the Member’s evidence in relation to this allegation was also inconsistent. She quoted language used by the Member in her complaint and witness statement but told the Panel during the hearing that she could not recall exactly what the Member said. Her account was littered with imprecise language and inferences and assumptions. She admitted that the Member did not try to introduce her to the stranger in reception or try to engage her in their conversation at all, and she did not hear him mention her name or any confidential information to the stranger. There was no evidence that the Member shared the stranger’s name or contact details with […] during the session. Given those findings, the Panel concluded it was implausible that he would claim that he was trying to set her up with the stranger in reception.

30. Again, the Panel found that […] was not a reliable historian and that the BACP had not proved allegation 1.1(b) on the balance of probabilities.

Allegations 1.2 and 1.3 – Not Proved

31. The Panel was not required to go on to consider allegations 1.2 and 1.3 as it had found the facts of allegation 1.1 not proved.

Allegation 2 – Upheld

Allegation 2.1 – Proved

32. […] stated that the Member admitted he had not provided […] with a record of the contractual terms agreed, although that was his normal practice. The Member had himself given evidence to this end. […] had stated that she was not given a record of the contractual terms agreed and the Panel found there was no evidence to the contrary.

33. The Panel found this allegation proved by admission.

Allegation 2.2 – Proved

34. The Panel applied its finding in respect of allegation 2.1 to paragraphs 31d of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It noted the Member’s evidence of insight, apology and remediation, and that he submitted that this was an isolated administrative mistake and not a failure to maintain professional standards. Nevertheless, the Panel concluded that his failure to provide […] with a copy of the terms they had agreed to amounted to a contravention of the requirements set out in paragraph 31d and that the Member’s evidence of remediation would be taken into consideration at sanction stage.

Sanction

35. Having determined that the Member had acted in contravention of paragraph 31d of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, the Panel now has to decide in accordance with paragraph 5.7 'Conclusion of the Hearing' section [d] of the PCP, on the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose.

The Evidence

36. The Panel has considered the evidence received during the earlier stages of the hearing where relevant to reaching a decision on sanction. It has also considered the Member’s representative’s submissions dated 11 March [Year 4], the Member’s updated therapy contract, privacy statement, contracting intake checklist, and monthly contracting audit process.

Previous Sanctions or Complaints.

37. The Panel noted that there were no previous sanctions or complaints to take into account.

Submissions

38. The Member’s representative submitted that this was an isolated incident that had not been repeated in the two years since it occurred, and the Member had unequivocally accepted responsibility for his failing, apologised, demonstrated and evidenced insight and steps taken in response to his contractual failing, had no previous professional conduct history, and is supported by positive testimonials.

The Panel's Approach to Sanction

39. The decision as to the appropriate sanction to impose, if any, is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgment. In reaching its decision, the Panel has had regard to the Member’s written evidence and submissions and has taken account of Protocol 14 of the PCP and the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

40. Paragraph 5.12 of the PCP states that the Panel may impose one or more of the following sanctions where a case is allocated to the Disciplinary Proceedings Track and one or more of the allegations is found proved:

i. A requirement to send a written apology to a relevant recipient of therapeutic services provided by the Member 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;
iv. Suspension of membership, for a specified period not exceeding 18 months, or until specified conditions have been met;

41. Protocol 14 of the PCP states that, in making their decisions on sanction, the Decision Maker must have regard to the overarching objective of protecting the public and safeguarding the public interest. Consideration should also be given to: protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of the complainant; maintaining public confidence in the profession; and promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession. Sanctions are not imposed to punish a practitioner, but they may have a punitive effect. Any sanction imposed must be intended to address one or more of the above factors.

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

Aggravating and Mitigating factors

43. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

a) The Member has no previous professional conduct history
b) The failing was an isolated incident and has not been repeated.
c) The Member has accepted responsibility, shown remorse and apologised.
d) The Member has taken comprehensive steps to implement systems that make repetition unlikely.

44. The Panel did not identify any aggravating factors.

Findings and Reasons on Sanction

• No Order

45. The Panel first considered to make no order and concluded that, due to the comprehensive remediation evidenced by the Member, he does not pose a risk to the public or the reputation of the profession. Accordingly, it concluded that it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to impose any sanction in this case.

Decision on Sanction

46. The Panel therefore determined to make no sanction order.

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