Professional Conduct notice / HS

June 2026: Helen Stone, Membership Number 00759708, Registrant ID 113277

Attendees

1. Helen Stone, the Member, attended; she was represented by […], Counsel

2. […], the Complainant, attended; she was not represented nor was she supported.

Introduction

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under section 5 of BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP).

Background

4. The therapeutic relationship between the parties lasted from February 2024 to July 2024.

5. The complaint, as reflected in the Allegations, concerns the Member’s involvement with the Complainant’s progression on a Foundation course at the Psychosynthesis Trust (the Trust) including the assessment of an autobiography the Complainant had written as part of her course.

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of Allegation 2.1

6. The documentation before the Panel in which the Allegations were set out contained Allegations 2.1(a), 2.1(b), 2.1(c) and a second 2.1(c). The Panel chair sought confirmation from each party that they were content that the second Allegation 2.1(c) was a typographical error and ought to read 2.1(d). Both parties indicated that this was their understanding.

7. The second Allegation 2.1(c) was amended to 2.1(d).

Application on behalf of the Member for the admission of Late Evidence

8. Counsel for the Member sought to have an additional document admitted as late evidence and had, prior to the hearing, provided written submissions in support of the admission of this document. Counsel supplemented his written submissions with oral submissions to the Panel submitting that the document sought to be admitted was it was a public document and was relevant as it confirms the Member’s case that the Member must contact the Trust if she had any concerns about the Complainant.

9. The Complainant opposed the admission of the document submitting that she had been on a Foundation course, that this course was designed to help her to better understand herself and was not in fact a training course. The Complainant further submitted that she would be prejudiced by the admission of the document as its admission would ‘muddy the waters’.

10. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Clerk who outlined the matters set out in BACP’s Protocol 4 on New and Late Evidence that the Panel was required to take into account in determining whether to admit the document as Late Evidence.

11. The Panel retired to make its decision.

12. The decision of the Panel was to admit the document as Late Evidence. It determined that on the papers there was a conflict of evidence between the parties on what the relationship between them was and that the documents before it already made reference to the phrase ‘Training Therapist’. The Panel considered that the document sought to be admitted by the Member as Late Evidence might assist it in determining the nature of the relationship between the parties so determined to admit it as Late Evidence.

13. The Panel took time to consider the document which was a single page document titled ‘Training Therapist Confirmation’.

The Allegations as Amended

14. The Allegations, as amended, against the Member are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member overreached her role as the Complainant’s therapist by:
(a) assessing or purporting to assess the Complainant’s autobiography and/or
(b) aligning herself with the Trust rather than the Complainant by writing to the Trust about the Complainant.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 7 and/or 33 a. and/or 33 b. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

7. We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together.

33. We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by:
(a) writing on one or more occasions to the Trust’s Admissions about the Complainant and/or
(b) informing the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team that the Complainant has stated that she wishes to cease working with her and/or
(c) assessing or purporting to assess the Complainant’s autobiography by describing it to the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team as ‘I do not believe it meets your criteria.’
(d) referring to financial matters relating to the Complainant to the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 55 a and/or 33 a. and/or 33 b. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure

Evidence

Witness Evidence

15. The Member gave oral evidence.

The Member’s evidence was consistent with her witness statement dated 2 January 2026 in which she denied the Allegations. However, although she did not make a formal admission to Allegation 2.1(d), the Member accepted that referring to the Complainant’s financial matters in her correspondence with the Trust was an error on her part. The Member clarified for the Panel that she had not signed a document similar to the Late Evidence in relation to the Complainant as the Complainant had not reached the stage covered by the document.

16. The Complainant gave oral evidence in support of the Allegations, emphasising that she was not in training and that the Foundation course was not part of the 2-year training programme to become a therapist. She stated that, in her opinion, the use of the term Training Therapist was not appropriate in terms of their relationship. In answering questions from the Panel, the Complainant accepted that her relationship with the Member differed from a ‘standard’ therapist/client relationship as it was designed to support her through her Foundation course, that she had asked the Member to read her autobiography and that the Member was required by the Trust to confirm by signing a document that she had read the autobiography.

Documentary Evidence

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

(a) the Complainant’s complaint to BACP together with documents in support provided by the Complaint;
(b) correspondence between BACP and the Complainant in which the Complainant responded to questions posed by BACP;
(c) the Member’s Preliminary Response with documents provided by the Member;
(d) further documentation proved by the Member;
(e) witness statement of the Member dated 2 January 2026;
(f) 2 emails supportive of the Member from her supervisor;
(g) further documents provided by the Member;
(h) single page Late Evidence titled ‘Training Therapist Confirmation’.

Facts

18. 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

Findings of Fact

19. The Panel made the following determinations on facts.

Allegation 1.1 (a) The Member overreached her role as the Complainant’s therapist by:

(a) assessing or purporting to assess the Complainant’s autobiography

The documents before the Panel include the September 2023 Student Handbook for the Certificate in Psychosynthesis Foundations of the Psychosynthesis Trust. Commencing on internal page 19 of the document are Guidelines on Written Assignments, Assessments & Marking Criteria. For Autobiography the Guidance refers to, inter alia, Purpose, Recommendations for Writing Autobiography and Topics to Include with lists: Relationship with Family, Relationships with Other Key Figures and Your General Development and goes on to provide guidance on Style of Writing. The Panel is satisfied that, taking the matters listed as a whole, they can be described as the ‘criteria’ which an autobiography is expected to contain.

This is consistent with the Member’s understanding of the criteria the Complainant’s autobiography was required to reach - see her email to the Trust on 31 July 2024 when she writes, inter alia:

[The Complainant] submitted her autobiography at the end of July 2024. Having read your guidelines in the FDN Handbook, I do not believe it meets your criteria.’

The Panel’s understanding is also consistent with the Complainant’s understanding of the criteria her autobiography was to meet - see her email the Member 30 July 2024 when she writes, inter alia:

‘My tutor has made it clear that the sign off is merely confirmation that the work has been completed and meets the criteria, namely, that it includes discussion of my relationships with my family, other significant figures, and general development …’

It is not in dispute between the parties that the Complainant asked the Member to read her autobiography and that the Member considered that the Complainant’s autobiography did not meet the criteria.

The Member’s evidence is that, as part of her role in relation to the Complainant, she was required to consider whether the Complainant’s autobiography met the criteria. The evidence before the Panel is that Trust also considered that the Member was required to consider whether the Complainant’s autobiography met the criteria; this is set out in part of the Trust’s email to the Member dated 31 July 2024 where it states:

‘Please do not worry about the autobiography. I will make the student’s tutor aware of the situation. I don’t think you could sign off on it, as you aren’t satisfied that it meets our criteria.’

The Panel, therefore, is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the Member overreached her role as the Complainant’s therapist by assessing or purporting to assess the Complainant’s autobiography.

Found NOT PROVED

Allegation 1.1(b) The Member overreached her role as the Complainant’s therapist by:

(b) aligning herself with the Trust rather than the Complainant by writing to the Trust about the Complainant.

The Panel is satisfied, although there may have been some lack of clarity about the exact parameters of the therapeutic relationship between the parties, that the relationship was outside the standard therapeutic relationship as it included:
• the requirement that the Complainant write an autobiography arose from the Complainant’s course
• the requirement that the autobiography be signed off by the Member arose as a requirement of the Complainant’s course.
• the Complainant requested the Member to consider her autobiography

The Panel therefore, consider it was appropriate for the Member to notify the Trust that she was unable to sign off the Complainant’s autobiography as she did not consider that it met the Trust’s criteria.

The Panel, therefore, is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Member overreached her role as the Complainant’s therapist by aligning herself with the Trust rather than the Complainant by writing to the Trust about the Complainant.

Found NOT PROVED

Allegation 2.1(a) The Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by:

(a) writing on one or more occasions to the Trust’s Admissions about the Complainant

Allegation 2.1(a) as drafted includes all occasions on which the Member wrote to the Trust about the Complainant. In light of its analysis of Allegation 1.1(a) above, that it was appropriate for the Member to write to the Trust about the Complainant’s autobiography, if follows that in doing so the Member did not breach the Complainant’s confidentiality.

The Panel is therefore satisfied, to the extent of writing to the Trust about the Complainant’s autobiography, that the Member did not breach the Complainant’s confidentiality; the Panel does not, therefore, find on the balance of probabilities that Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by writing on one or more occasions to the Trust’s Admissions about the Complainant.

Found NOT PROVED

Allegation 2.1(b) The Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by:

(b) informing the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team that the Complainant has stated that she wishes to cease working with her and/or

The Panel is satisfied that, whatever may have been unclear about the therapeutic relationship between the parties, it is for the client in any therapeutic relationship to disclose to any person outside of the therapeutic relationship:

(a) that they are in a therapeutic relationship,
(b) who they are in a therapeutic relationship with,
(c) that any therapeutic relationship they may have been in has ended.

The Panel is therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by informing the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team that the Complainant has stated that she wishes to cease working with her.

Found PROVED

Allegation 2.1(c) The Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by:

(c) assessing or purporting to assess the Complainant’s autobiography by describing it to the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team as ‘I do not believe it meets your criteria.’

In light of its analysis of Allegation 1.1(a) above, it follows that as:

(a) the Member had been asked by the Complainant to consider her (the Complainant’s) autobiography, and
(b) the Member’s role included signing off the Complainant’s autobiography only if she considered it met the Trust’s criteria

The Member had not breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by assessing that the Complainant’s autobiography had not met the Trust’s criteria.

Found NOT PROVED

Allegation 2.1(d) The Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by:

(d) referring to financial matters relating to the Complainant to the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team.

The view of the Panel is that, save in exceptional conditions, which do not apply here, any information about a client is confidential. It is not in dispute that the Member’s knowledge about the Complainant’s financial circumstances arose as a result of the therapeutic relationship.

The Panel is satisfied, therefore, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member breached the Complainant’s confidentiality by referring to financial matters relating to the Complainant to the Trust’s Admissions and / or Admin and / or Enquiries team.

Found PROVED

Alleged breach of the Ethical Framework 2018

20. The Panel went on the consider the breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018 alleged for Allegations 2.1(b) and 2.1(d).

55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure

33. We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:

a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client.

21. The view of the Panel is that paragraph 55 a. encompasses the findings of fact made but that neither paragraph 33 a. nor 33 b. fit the non-standard therapeutic relationship between the parties as found by the Panel.

22. Whilst the Panel has found Allegation 2.1(b) proved, it does not find it amounts to a breach of paragraph 55 a. as there is information before the Panel that the Complainant was herself sharing information with her tutor at the Trust that she wished to cease working with the Member.

23. The Panel is satisfied that paragraph 55 a. been breached by the conduct found in Allegation 2.1(d): the Member’s knowledge about the Complainant’s financial matters arose solely from the therapeutic relationship and, without the Complainant’s consent which she did not have, was confidential.

Decision

24. The Panel found that the Member has failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that she has acted contrary to paragraph 55 a. of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

25. The Panel reconvened on 21 April 2026 to determine what sanction, if any, it could impose, sanction being a matter for the Panel’s judgment.

26. Prior to the hearing the Panel had received the following on behalf of the Member:
(a) email from her legal representative dated 6 March 2026;
(b) single page document titled AGREEMENT & INFORMATION FOR NEW CLIENTS;
(c) supportive reference from […], the Member’s supervisor, dated 8 August 2025.

27. The Panel reminded itself of the findings of fact it had made and its decision on breach 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.

28. Paragraph 5.12 b 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:

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;

29. 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.

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

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

32. The Panel determined the following sanction to be proportionate:
Within 4 weeks of receipt of this determination to:

(a) provide to BACP a written document setting out her understanding of the central role that confidentiality plays in every therapeutic relationship whatever it’s configuration, whether it’s the classic therapist/client relationship or one with an additional dimension as in this case. The Member is also asked to set out what went wrong in this case, focusing on:

(i) the Allegations found,

(ii) what changes the Member has made or would make to her practice, other than avoiding the additional dimension in this case,

(iii) how they have/would embed these changes into their practice referencing the relevant parts of the Ethical Framework 2018,

(iv) the impact of their conduct on confidence that clients might have in their therapist in light of such conduct, and

(v) the impact of their conduct on the Association and the counselling professions.

(b) write a letter of apology addressed to the Complainant acknowledging her conduct and the impact of this on the Complainant

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