Professional Conduct notice / KB

March 2026: Katherine Banner, Membership Number 00927438 , Registrant ID 383419

Attendees

1. Katherine Banner, the Member, attended; she was not represented nor was she supported.

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).

4. The Complainant and the Member were in a therapeutic relationship from 9 November Year 1 to 12 March Year 2 ; there were 16 sessions.

5. The Complainant’s , […], had given the Complainant the Member’s details.

6. On 12 March Year 2 the Complainant attended for a session and was informed by the Member in that session that she (the Member) could no longer work with the Complainant as the Complainant and […] were […] and in that session referenced boundaries, paperwork and ethics.

7. The Complainant was devastated by the Member’s action and asked for an ending session, but the Member said no.

8. On 15 March Year 2 the Complainant emailed the Member asking for a closing session. The Member replied that it was not possible.

9. On 18 March Year 2 the Member sent an email to the Complainant offering her 4 options. The Complainant chose the option of a ZOOM session which was subsequently changed to a face-to-face session at the Complainant’s request.

10. The parties met on 20 March Year 2. The Complainant did not receive an explanation for the abrupt ending of therapy but was given a leaflet on abandonment and a list of alternative therapists.

Legal issue arising

11. During her evidence the Complainant referred to an email she had sent to the Member introducing herself to the Member and saying that she had been given the Member’s contact details by […] . The email was not in the Hearing Bundle.

12. It was arranged that the email in question would be sent to the Clerk for her to consider its relevance and fairness.

13. The Clerk established that:
(a) the Complainant wished an email from her to the Member and the Member’s response to that email to be provided to the Panel, and that
(b) the Member did not oppose these emails being provided to the Panel.

14. The Panel took time to consider the Complainant’s email of 31 October Year 1 and the Member’s response of 1 November Year 1.

15. The view of the Panel was that both emails were relevant and that, as the parties agreed that they should be seen by the Panel, it was fair to admit them pursuant to paragraph 4.9 of the PCP and did not consider it to be proportionate to require the provisions of Protocol 4 (late/new evidence) to be followed or met.

Allegations

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

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member did not manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she:

a. ended it abruptly; and/or
b. did not communicate with the client clearly and/or consistently; and/or
c. did not adequately consider the effect of her actions on the client.

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:

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.

Evidence

Witness evidence

17. The Complainant gave evidence

The Complainant gave evidence that the Member was aware of her friendship with […] from their first session and outlined the issues she brought to the Member as her therapist. The Complainant explained that before ending the therapeutic relationship the Member did not explore with her how long she was intending to […] with […] and did not reassess her for her scores as at March Year 2 on the GAD-7 Anxiety PHQ-9 Depression assessments. The impact of the abrupt ending of the therapeutic relationship on her was such that for the first time the Complainant sought emergency telephone support for herself. The Complainant explained how she was further negatively impacted by the Member’s confusing conduct in firstly saying an ending session was not possible and then changing her mind and providing one.

18. The Member also gave evidence.

The Member described the session on 12 March Year 2 as a ‘referral session’ and explained that she could not continue to work with the Complainant as two clients, the Complainant and […], were […]. The decision of the Member was that, as she had worked for a longer period of time with […] as her client, she could no longer work with the Complainant. The Member did not consider that the Complainant’s therapy ended abruptly explaining she had made an ‘open referral’ by informing the Complainant why she would no longer work with her and providing her with a list of alternative therapists she could continue her work with. As the Member had made an ‘open referral’ and therapy had not ended but would continue with another therapist, she did not consider an ending session to be appropriate but, having taken the matter to supervision and contacted BACP Ethics, she offered the Complainant 4 options and a face to face session took place on 20 March Year 2 that the Member did not charge for.

Facts

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

19. 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 of fact

20.The Panel made the following findings of fact.

Allegation 1.1 a. The Member did not manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she:

a. ended it abruptly

Found proved

The view of the Panel is that by the session on 12 March Year 2 the Member had made a decision not to undertake any further work with the Complainant and that she did not consider the session on 12 March Year 2 to be a therapeutic session but a ‘referral session’. On the Member’s evidence, the therapeutic relationship had ended before the Complainant entered the room on 12 March Year 2 .

It is not in dispute that the Member gave the Complainant no notice of her decision until she told the Complainant in session on 12 March Year 2. Nor is it in dispute that the Member did not undertake an updating GAD-7 or PHQ-9 to risk assess whether it was safe to end the therapeutic relationship.

The Panel does not accept the Member’s description that the Complainant’s therapy didn’t end because she was recommending other therapists that the Complainant could work with. The view of the Panel is that, by her action, she terminated her relationship with the Complainant.

The Panel has heard the Member’s explanation of […] but has no evidence that the situation was so urgent, that a risk was so great, that termination had to take place without notice on 12 March Year 2 […].

The view of the Panel is that what took place on 20 March Year 2 may have been called an ending session but was not in fact an ending session; it was not suggested by either party that what took place was a review of the work the Complainant had undertaken with the Member leaving the Complainant with a sense of closure.

In these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Member ended the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant abruptly.

Allegation 1.1 b. The Member did not manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she:

b. did not communicate with the client clearly and/or consistently

Found proved both as to clearly and as to consistently

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that she left the Member on 12 March Year 2 and did not understand why the Member had ended therapy and further, that she left the Member on 20 March Year 2 and did not understand why the Member had ended therapy.

In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Member did not communicate with the Complainant clearly.

It is not in dispute that on 15 March Year 2 the Member told the Complainant that a closing session was not possible but that on 18 March Year 2 she offered 4 options and that on 20 March Year 2 the parties met face to face.

The Panel is satisfied that the Member’s communication with the Complainant was inconsistent.

Allegation 1.1 c. The Member did not manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately in that she:

c. did not adequately consider the effect of her actions on the client.

Found proved

The Member’s evidence was that she was not abandoning the Complainant but was referring her on to another therapist and that she had assessed that it was appropriate to transfer the Complainant to another therapist.

The Panel finds that the Member focused on her wish to end the therapeutic relationship but did not adequately take into account the impact of termination on the Complainant.

It is not in dispute that the Member did not:
(a) explore with the Complainant on 12 March Year 2 or subsequently whether there may be alternatives to the immediate termination of the therapeutic relationship, or
(b) undertake an updating GAD-7 or PHQ-9 assessment to enable her to undertake an up-to-date risk assessment of whether it was safe to end the therapeutic relationship.

In addition, the Panel has no evidence that the situation was so urgent, that a risk was so great, that termination had to take place without notice on 12 March Year 2.

The Panel is satisfied that the Member did not adequately consider the effect of her actions on the client.

Alleged breach of the Ethical Framework 2018

21. The Panel went on the consider the breach of the Ethical Framework 2018 alleged.

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.

It is not in dispute that the Member did not inform the Complainant in advance of her decision to end the therapeutic relationship.

The Panel has already observed that it has no evidence that the situation was so urgent, that a risk was so great, that termination had to take place without notice on 12 March Year 2.

The Panel notes that the Member has described the Complainant’s therapy as ‘short term’. The Panel does not accept this description as the Complainant’s sessions were ongoing; even if it was to accept this description, the view of the Panel is that, save for a risk or emergency, which, in the view of the Panel there is no evidence to support, providing no notice of a decision to terminate a short term therapeutic relationship would be a breach of paragraph 39.

The Panel is satisfied that paragraph 39 been breached by the conduct found in Allegations 1.1 a, b. and c.

Decision

22. The Panel found that the Member has failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that she has acted contrary to paragraph 39 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

23. The Panel reconvened on 30 January Year 4 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate. The Panel reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within BACP Protocol on Sanctions (PR14), the BACP Indicative sanctions guidance and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

24. The Panel noted the Member’s submissions on sanction by email on 16 December Year 3 . It observed that the Member had started additional supervision with a clinical psychologist supervisor to support the development of her knowledge and clinical understanding of attachment disturbances and intended to engage in six months of additional supervision with a clinical psychologist to enhance her ability to recognise complex attachment presentations and assess suitability for therapeutic work within her scope of practice. The Member said she had also reflected on the complaint and gained insight into the client’s statement that they had ‘become attached’ to the Member and how this contributed to their experience of the referral as abrupt. She had also started training in Somatic EMDR to further develop her understanding of trauma-related and attachment-based presentations, supporting her commitment to working competently and within her limits.

The Member said she was seeking advice to strengthen her contracting, in particular explanations of the referral and ending process, payment for planned closing sessions and avoidance of dual relationships/maintenance of boundaries.

25. The Panel found that the Member had not, however, demonstrated remorse, nor acknowledged the harm and distress caused to the Complainant and had not sufficiently focused on management of adequate and appropriate endings, which was the focus of the allegations and ethical framework breach found proved.

26. The Panel therefore concluded that it was necessary and proportionate to impose a requirement for the Member to undergo specific training on managing ethical endings with clients and to demonstrate improvement in practice and to apologise to the Complainant.

27.The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to provide the BACP with the following within 6 weeks of the date of this letter:

1. Evidence of the completion of 6 hours of CPD relating to the ethical management of therapeutic endings with clients.

2. After completing the CPD, a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice that:

a. reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;

b. recognises the impact of her conduct on the Complainant;

c. details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong, with particular reference to the ethical management of therapeutic endings with clients.

3. A letter of apology addressed to the Complainant that acknowledges what went wrong in respect of the ending and the impact on the Complainant.

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