Professional Conduct notice / KB

May 2026: Katarzyna Buxton, Membership Number 00979834, Registrant ID 393586

Attendees:

1. The Member Katarzyna Buxton attended and was not represented.

2. The Complainant […] did not attend and was not represented. The Hearing Panel had previously decided that it should proceed with the hearing in the Complainant’s absence in accordance with Paragraph 5.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Introduction:

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under Section 5 of BACP's Professional Conduct Procedure.

Background:

4. The Complainant complained to BACP on 4 February [Year 6] about Katarzyna Buxton whom she saw for counselling from July [Year 1] until March [Year 5], initially through the Member’s training organisation and subsequently through her private practice. She stated that when she first met the Member, she had been in an abusive relationship during the covid lockdown and needed support. The therapeutic relationship started with phone calls, then video calls, followed by walking sessions and finally indoor sessions at the Member’s home.

5. The Complainant alleged that the Member blurred the boundaries between them by treating her as a friend rather than a client, inviting her to social events, engaging with her in a friendly manner and sending messages suggesting that she cared about her.

6. The Complainant alleged that the Member told her that she would not end the therapeutic relationship until the Complainant was ready to do so. She then ended it unilaterally which the Complainant found distressing.

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with the Complainant in that:

a. She invited the Complainant to attend a gardening group with her; and/or
b. She agreed to act as a witness at the Complainant’s wedding; and/or
c. She offered the Complainant the use of her caravan; and/or
d. She asked the Complainant to dog-sit; and / or
e. She gave the Complainant free tickets to a ‘gig’.

1.2 The Member also failed to maintain professional boundaries in correspondence by using overfamiliar terms in electronic messages including:

a. […] (On 28 February Year 5)
b. […] (On 4 November Year 2)
c. […] (On 22 November Year 2)
d. […] (On 14 March Year 3)
e. […] (On 26 April Year 5)
f. […] (On 26 April Year 5)

1.3 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.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member inappropriately initiated a discussion with the Complainant regarding the microdosing of psilocybin.

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:

13 - We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to manage the ending of the therapeutic relationship appropriately by ending it unilaterally, to the detriment of the Complainant, having previously advised her that she (the Complainant) would be able to decide when therapy ended.

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 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.

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member failed to contract and / or provide the Complainant with a record of their contract.

4.2 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:

31 - 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:

a. reaching an agreement or contract that takes account of each client’s expressed needs and choices so far as possible; and/or
b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context; and/or
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; and/or
d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed; and/or
e. keeping a record of what has been agreed and of any changes or clarifications when they occur.

Admissions:

7. Following the reading of the allegations the Panel Chair asked the Member whether she admitted any of the allegations.

8. The Member informed the Panel that she admitted Allegation 1.1 a, b and c on a factual basis but did not accept that her conduct amounted to a failure to maintain appropriate boundaries. She also admitted Allegation 1.2 a to f on a factual basis but did not accept that her conduct amounted to a failure to maintain professional boundaries as alleged.

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

Evidence

Witness Evidence

10. The Member made submissions and answered questions from the Panel. In her submissions, she told the Panel that the Complainant was initially referred to her through the Member’s training organisation and subsequently continued therapy through the Member’s private practice. At the start of therapy the Complainant was in an abusive relationship, which she subsequently left, but she wanted to continue therapy as she felt socially isolated and suicidal.

11. The Member stated that they therefore reframed their therapeutic goals over time to address the Complainant’s new relationship challenges, her fractured family relationships, abandonment issues and drug use. They worked together for a period of nearly four years and the Complainant made significant progress. The Member told the Panel that she felt stuck in the therapeutic relationship, as she felt that she had become a mentor and rescuer to the Complainant and did not know how to move on due to her inexperience.

12. The Member stated that following discussions with her Supervisor, she told the Complainant that they should work towards a therapeutic ending in six months as she could not help her further. She said that the Complainant had an emotionally violent reaction to the proposed ending, calling the Member ‘vile’ and ‘horrible’, saying she did not trust her and would “make her pay”.

13. The Member said that she was disappointed that the Complainant does not acknowledge the progress they made over the course of therapy. However, she said that the complaint has caused her to reflect on her work and what she would do differently in the future.

Documentary Evidence

14. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence consisted of a bundle of 87 pages including:

i. Complainant’s Complaint
ii. Member’s Preliminary Response
iii. Investigation and Assessment Committee Report
iv. Member’s Formal Response
v. Complainant’s Additional Evidence

Facts

The Panel’s Approach to Facts

15. 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

Allegation 1.1 - PROVED IN PART

The Panel bore in mind that the Member admitted Allegation 1.1 a, b and c on a factual basis but did not accept that her conduct was inappropriate. She also accepted the fact of 1.1 e when she was referred to an exchange of messages between herself and the Complainant dated 21 July 2023 which made it clear that she had given tickets to the Complainant.

With regard to 1.1 d, the Member denied having asked the Complainant to dog sit for her. The Panel noted in the bundle an undated electronic message apparently sent by the Member to the Complainant which started “I am having such wobbles about […] [the dog]”. The Member stated that she had no recollection of sending that message and the Panel noted that there was no information to demonstrate when the message had been sent or by whom. Whilst it acknowledged that the message appeared to suggest that there had been a discussion about caring for the dog, it could not be satisfied that the Member had specifically asked the Complainant to dog sit as alleged and it therefore found Allegation 1.1 d not proved on the balance of probabilities.

The Panel next considered whether Allegations 1.1 a, b, c and e amounted to a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries as alleged.

It heard evidence from the Member that the gardening group she had suggested to the Complainant was a community group established to support local residents’ wellbeing. The Panel accepted that the Member had suggested this to the Complainant as she was socially isolated and the Member had believed that it may be helpful to the Complainant to engage with others in a non-pressurised environment. The Panel noted in particular that this was a community group activity, at which the Member volunteered, and it was not a private social arrangement. The Panel found therefore that inviting the Complainant to attend did not amount to a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

The Panel considered that Allegations 1.1 b, c and e related to private social arrangements between her and the Complainant, which were not appropriate in the context of a therapeutic relationship. It found that these amounted to a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

The Panel therefore found Allegations 1.1 b, c and e proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1.2 – PROVED IN PART

The Panel noted that the Member admitted having used the words stated in Allegations 1.2 a to f. She said that the messages were sent during periods when the Complainant was feeling suicidal and unloved, and she believed that the language used was appropriate in that context.

Having considered the Member’s explanation, the Panel considered that the words used in Allegation 1.2 b, namely […], were not inappropriate in the context of the therapeutic relationship and the Complainant’s situation, as the Member was expressing genuine concern for her client. However, the Panel considered that the language used in 1.2 a, c, d, e and f, including […] and use of […] amounted to a failure to maintain professional boundaries as they were over familiar and inappropriate in the context of a therapeutic relationship.

The Panel therefore found Allegations 1.2 a, c, d, e and f proved on the balance of possibilities.

Allegation 1.3 - PROVED

The Panel next went on to apply its findings in respect of Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 to the Ethical Framework.

It bore in mind that Paragraph 33a of the Ethical Framework states that members must ensure that boundaries are “consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.”. Whilst the Panel accepted that the Member’s behaviour towards the Complainant had been well intentioned at the time, it noted also her acknowledgement that she had taken on the role of “rescuer” to the Complainant. The Panel did not consider that the Member’s conduct as found proved in this allegation had assisted their work together or been beneficial to the client, as it had created a dependency on the Member which did not support the therapeutic alliance.

The Panel therefore found Allegation 1.3 proved on in respect of Allegations 1.1 b, c and e, and 1.2 a, c, d, e and f.

Allegation 2.1 – NOT PROVED

The Panel heard evidence from the Member that the Complainant had raised in a session the issue of possible treatments for PTSD. The Member states that she discussed the use of EMDR and CBT and also told the Complainant about ongoing research at […] University which was looking at the use of Psilocybin as a potential treatment for PTSD. The Member told the Panel that she had neither recommended the use of Psilocybin, nor had she offered it; indeed, she made it clear to the Complainant that the treatment was not currently available. In the circumstances, the Panel did not find the Member’s reference to ongoing academic research into the use of Psilocybin to be inappropriate. It therefore found this allegation not proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 2.2

Having found allegation 2.1 not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider allegation 2.2.

Allegation 3.1 – NOT PROVED

The Panel noted that although the Member had advised the Complainant at an early stage in the relationship that therapy would continue for as long as the Complainant required it, it accepted the Member’s evidence that in the later stages of the relationship, she believed that the therapy lacked direction and had decided, in conjunction with her Supervisor, that the relationship should be brought to a conclusion as she did not believe she could help the Complainant further. The Panel noted that the Member had told the Complainant that they could work towards an ending in three to six months, although the Complainant decided that she did not want to continue with therapy on that basis. In the circumstances, the Panel accepted that the Member had made an appropriate professional decision to end therapy with the Complainant and had given her sufficient notice of her intention to work towards an ending. The Panel therefore found this allegation not proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 3.2

Having found allegation 3.1 not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider allegation 3.2.

Allegation 4.1 – NOT PROVED

The Panel heard evidence from the Member that she had given the Complainant a copy of her contract at the first session between them through the Member’s private practice, and that both parties had signed the contract at the time. The Panel had before it a copy of the Member’s contract, although that copy was not signed. However, it noted that the Complainant acknowledged in her written evidence to the Panel that she had been provided with a copy of the contract, although she did not confirm when she had received this. In the circumstances, the Panel found this allegation not proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 4.2

Having found allegation 4.1 not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider allegation 4.2.

Decision

16. The Panel concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraph of the Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the counselling professions 2018: Paragraph 33a.

Sanction

17. The Panel reconvened on 3 March 2026 to determine what sanction, if any, it would impose, sanction being a matter for the Panel’s judgment.

18. Prior to the hearing the Panel had received a letter from the Member dated 16 January [Year 7] in which she made no representations on sanction but stated, inter alia:

‘I trust your judgment as to what sanctions you might feel necessary and will do my best to carry out your decision.’

19. The Panel reminded itself of the findings of fact it had made and its decisions on breaches 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.

20. 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;

21. 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.

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

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

24. The Panel determined the following sanction to be proportionate:

(1) Within 4 weeks of receipt of this determination to complete a minimum of 6 hours of continuing professional development on the importance of maintaining personal and professional boundaries and to provide evidence of her undertaking this in the form of certificate(s) of completion of course(s) and/or a log of her reading of relevant materials or her personal study.

(2) Having completed the above training to provide to BACP within 8 weeks of receipt of this determination:

(a) a written document setting out:
• what went wrong in this case
• why this case went wrong
• what had been going on in her life that led to the case going wrong

focusing on the Allegations proved and what she has learned from the training/reading/study she has undertaken as requested in 1 above and what changes she has made to her practice to avoid a repetition of the conduct found in the Allegations proved, how she has embedded these changes into her practice referencing the relevant parts of the Ethical Framework 2018 and the impact of her conduct on the Complainant, on BACP and on the wider counselling professions;

(b) a letter of apology addressed to the Complainant focusing on her acceptance of her failings and the impact of this on the client.

In addition to the above sanction the Member is requested to confirm that she has discussed each part of the sanction with her supervisor.

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