March 2024: AC, Reference No: 00950873 Registrant ID:382008
March 2024: Angi Czarnecka, Reference No: 00950873 Registrant ID:382008
A Professional Conduct Panel (the Panel) consisting of […] Met on […] remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider a complaint by the Complainant, […], about the Member, Agnieska Czarnecka.
In attendance were […] (Case Processor and Clerk’s Assistant) and […] (Clerk to the Panel). The Member attended. The Complainant did not attend. By its decision of 14 November Year 2 pursuant to paragraph 5.9 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 a Panel of the BACP determined that this hearing should proceed in the Complainant’s absence.
The complaint concerned an alleged failure by the Member to comply with Professional Standards and resulted in the Investigation and Assessment Committee formulating the following Allegations:
Allegations
Allegation 1
1.1 In email correspondence with the Complainant the Member used abrupt and inappropriate language:
a) in an email dated 4 October Year 1 timed at 7:15pm the Member sought to unilaterally change the time of the Complainant’s next session
‘Hi […],
I am having to rearrange my morning schedule on Mondays due to unforeseen circumstances. I am writing to ask whether you would be able to attend the session at 10AM starting from next week?
Thanks and best wishes,
Agni’
b) in an e mail dated 9 October Year 1 timed at 4:41pm stated:
‘Hi […],
The session on Monday at 11 was confirmed in my last mail and further agreed by you in your response and therefore I expect to see you on Monday at 11 am.
Best regards
Agni’
when the Complainant had not agreed to a change in the time of the next session in her response to the Member.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 12 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states:
12: We will do everything we can to develop and protect our client’s trust.
Allegation 2
2.1 By e mail dated 9 October Year 1 timed at 8:05pm the Member unilaterally and without prior notice to the Complainant ended the therapeutic relationship between them.
‘Hi [….],
As discussed previously and explicitly highlighted in our contract I don’t discuss patient’s issues outside of the sessions. That includes ‘financial concerns’ or any other personal issues.
Since you are not inclined to attend our next session this Monday and willing to discuss the issues raised by mail in person, I consider our work together concluded.
I wish you all the very best.
Agni’
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 39 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states:
39: We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client’s expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.
Allegation 3
3.1 The Member failed to recognise the sensitivity of race for the Complainant as a person of […] heritage:
a) assumed the Complainant attributed the behaviour of a […] neighbour towards her (the Complainant) was due to racism when it was due to negative associations based on the Complainant’s […]
b) called the Complainant ‘sensitive’ the first time the Complainant told her it was offensive to assume all […] were good at math.
3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 22 a. and 22g of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:
22: We will respect our clients as people by providing services that:
a. endeavour to demonstrate equality, value diversity and ensure inclusion for all clients
g. recognise when our knowledge of key aspects of our client’s background, identity or lifestyle is inadequate and take steps to inform ourselves from other sources where available and appropriate, rather than expecting the client to teach us.
Documents and evidence before the Panel
The Panel was provided with the following written materials:
The Complainant’s Complaint
The Member’s Preliminary Response
The Complainant’s additional evidence
The Member’s further evidence
The Complaint’s correspondence with the BACP regarding her wish not to attend the hearing
The decision of the Panel of 14 November Year 2 to proceed in the absence of the Complainant
The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
In coming to its decisions the Panel carefully considered the following:
The allegations made
The written, verbal and documentary evidence
What weight to attach to the evidence
Whether the allegations should be upheld
Summary of the evidence
The Complainant has complained about Agnieska Czarnecka, an individual member of the BACP. The complaint is dated 14 October Year 1 and the Complainant has attached a number of emails between her and the Member.
In summary the Complainant states:
1. The Complainant started seeing the Member for therapy in May Year 1. The Complainant initially wanted to do a limited number of sessions but then this was never properly discussed, which the Complainant states ended up becoming an issue because she had limited funds. There were 16 sessions in total all taking place in Year 1.
2. The Complainant has raised concerns that the Member’s research did not seem up to date. She gives examples that the Member did not seem to understand terms such as "gaslighting", and would victim-blame by asking about the Complainant's feelings about being […], when she told her of concerns about racism.
3. The Complainant complains that the Member failed to understand racism and the impact of racism on her as a person of […].
4. The Complainant states that the Member would sometimes assume the worst of her and fill in the blanks.
5. The Complainant has raised concerns about the Member’s communication which she states was poor and even rude. She has complained that the Member would not respond to her financial concerns over email (even though this was something that had been left undiscussed since the beginning of therapy) and that she needed to book another paid appointment to be able to discuss them.
6. The Complainant has referenced an exchange of emails where the Member asked if they could rearrange the session times and move them from 11:00 to 10:00 on Mondays. She raises particular concern about an email from 9 October Year 1 from the Member which reads:
"The session on Monday at 11 am was confirmed in my last email and further agreed by you in your response and therefore I expect to see you on Monday at 11 am.”
7. The Complainant then included the final two emails that led to the Member stating that the therapy was concluded:
a. From the Complainant on Saturday 9 October Year 1 at 16:50:
“First of all, you never replied to my last email so it wasn’t clear at all. Second of all, you sound mad now which doesn’t really make me feel inclined to want to meet with you on Monday.
Best,
[…]”
b. From the Member on Saturday 9 October Year 1 at 20:05:
"Hi […],
As discussed previously and explicitly highlighted in our contract I don't discuss patients' issues outside of the sessions. That includes 'financial concerns' or any other personal issues.
Since you are not inclined to attend our next session this Monday and willing to discuss the issues raised by email in person, I consider our work together concluded.
I wish you all the very best.
Agni"
8. In response to a request for further information the Complainant has provided:
a. The Member’s information sheet ‘Practical Information for new clients’ which she gave to the Complainant, and
b. Confirmed she attended 16 sessions with the Member on the following dates: Thurs. May 6th, Jun. 10, Jun. 17, Jun. 24, July 1, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, Aug. 5, Aug. 12, Aug. 19, Aug. 23, Aug. 30, Sept. 5, Sept. 12, all in Year 1
The hearing
The Member gave oral evidence and was asked questions by the Panel.
Preliminary issue
During the Member’s oral evidence an issue arose about the meaning in Allegation 1.1 of the words:
• abrupt, and
• inappropriate
The Panel heard submissions from the Member and took legal advice from the Clerk.
The decision of the Panel is that it, in the context of the material before it, it would use the following meanings:
• abrupt: brief to the point of rudeness
• inappropriate: not suitable or proper in the circumstances
Decision and Reasons for Findings
Throughout the hearing the Panel bore in mind its power pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure to amend Allegation 1.1. In the circumstances of the case, particularly that the Complainant was not in attendance, the Panel did not exercise this power.
When making its decisions the Panel bore in mind that, although she was not in attendance, the Complainant has the burden of proving the allegations on the balance of probabilities.
Having considered the documentary, written and oral evidence, the Panel made the following findings:
Allegation 1.1 (a)
Found not proved on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel carefully considered whether, by the email she sent to the Complainant on 4 October Year 1 at 7:15pm the Member had, by this email, sought to unilaterally change the time of the Complainant’s next session.
The Panel noted the correspondence between the parties after the above email:
Complainant: No sorry, 11 is the earliest I would be available.
Member: Let me look into it and get back to you.
Complainant: OK thanks Agni.
Member: Lets meet at 11 this coming Monday then.
Complainant: Okay thanks Agni.
The decision of the Panel is that this part of the allegation is not proved as there was subsequent correspondence between the parties which resulted in the time of the Complainant’s next session remaining unchanged.
Allegation 1.1 (b)
Found not proved on the balance of probabilities.
In considering this allegation the Panel bore in mind the meaning of the words abrupt and inappropriate.
The decision of the Panel is that this part of the allegation is not proved as, whilst the words used by the Member are somewhat abrupt, they are not inappropriate.
Allegation 2.1
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
The Member accepted before the Panel that she had ended the therapeutic relationship without notice to the Complainant.
From the written and oral evidence the Panel was satisfied that there had been no discussion between the parties prior to the Complainant’s email of 9 October Year 1 timed at 8.05pm. The Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that by this email the Member did end the therapeutic relationship unilaterally and without notice.
Allegation 3.1 (a)
Found not proved on the balance of probabilities.
In the Complainant’s absence the Panel was unable to explore this part of the allegation with her.
The Member explained that she did not imply to the Complainant that there was any causal effect between her story of her neighbour in […] and her feelings about this and her feelings in the past, that she began to explore the Complainant’s feelings about her neighbour in […] in the context of her history.
Allegation 3.1 (b)
Found not proved on the balance of probabilities.
In the Complainant’s absence the Panel was unable to explore this part of the allegation with her. The Panel found the Member’s response in denying this part of the allegation credible as she described how she attempted to explore positive stereotypes with the Complainant.
Allegations 1.2 and 3.2
As the Panel found allegations 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 3.1(a) and 3.1(b) not proved, it did not have to go on the consider allegations 1.2 or 3.2.
Allegation 2.2
The decision of the Panel is that by ending the therapeutic relationship as she did, unilaterally and without notice, the Member breached paragraph 39 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which provides:
39: We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client’s expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.
Decision
Accordingly, the decision of the Panel was that there has been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards but only in respect of the proven allegation 2.1 in that the Member acted contrary to paragraph 39 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 7 September Year 3 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate given that the Member has been given the opportunity to provide written submissions on sanction.
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 Member had provided submissions in respect of sanction by email dated 24 July Year 3. The Panel noted the Member’s expression of regret and request for the decision to be published (considered below). The Panel took into consideration the personal circumstances the Member was experiencing at the time, including […] and the […], which it considered to be mitigation. Nevertheless, it decided that the breach found proved required the Member to undertake learning and adopt changes to her practise to ensure the safety of clients and maintenance of the reputations of the BACP and counselling professions.
The Panel concluded that the Member’s conduct that it had found proven warranted the following sanction:
1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this letter, the Member is to provide the BACP with:
a. Evidence of successful completion of no less than 6 hours continuous professional development (CPD) focused on managing safe endings in therapeutic relationships.
b. A personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice that;
i. reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;
ii. demonstrates a deep understanding of the harm that can be caused by abrupt and/or poorly managed endings with clients and the harm that was caused to the Complainant;
iii. details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.
c. A genuine and sincere letter of apology that accepts responsibility for the events found proved by the Panel and recognises the distress caused to the Complainant.
d. Confirmation that the Member has discussed her CPD and personal statement with her supervisor.
The BACP Registrar defines CPD as:
‘Any learning experience that can be used for the systematic maintenance, improvement and broadening of competence, knowledge and skills to ensure that the practitioner has the capacity to practise safely, effectively and legally within their evolving scope of practice. It may include both personal and professional development’.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)