September 2026: KE, Membership Number 00916686, Registrant ID 381977

September 2026: Kevin Elliot, Membership Number 00916686, Registrant ID 381977

Attendees

1. Kevin Elliot (the Member) attended. He was not represented but he was supported by
[ . . . ]

2. The Association was represented by [ . . . ], solicitor advocate, who was shadowed by [ . . . ] of Counsel.

Introduction

3. This is a Disciplinary Proceedings Track Hearing held under section 5 of the Association’s Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP).

Background

4. The Association received complaints about the conduct of the Member whilst he worked as a counsellor at [ . . . ]. The Member commenced working at [ . . . ] in September 2021.

5. The Member commenced his role at [ . . . ] at the same time as [ . . . ]; another counsellor, [ . . . ], was already in post. At the beginning of their time at [ . . . ], the Member and [ . . . ] were provided electronically by [ . . . ] with a number of documents relating to counselling sessions at [ . . . ].

6. [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] say that they were first concerned about the Member’s conduct in September 2022 when they found that the Member had not kept notes of his counselling sessions. Both [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] say that they became further concerned about the Member’s conduct including the low number of students it appeared he was counselling, his counselling of School Client 3 and his record keeping, including around safeguarding and the safeguarding system known at [ . . . ] as [ . . . ].

7. [ . . . ] was the Member’s supervisor whilst he worked at [ . . . ]; this supervision was paid for by [ . . . ]. [ . . . ] also supervised [ . . . ]. [ . . . ] had expressed concerns about the low number of school clients that the Member brought to supervision, that the Member wanted her to claim full payment for a supervision session that lasted for less time than had been allocated and regarding his conduct in relation to School Client 3.

8. [ . . . ], [ . . . ] and the Member had all studied their foundation degree at [ . . . ]. [ . . . ] was a tutor on the same course.

9. [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] raised their concerns about the Member with [ . . . ] senior management; there was an internal investigation to which [ . . . ], [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] contributed.

10. The Member resigned from [ . . . ] in April 2023.

Preliminary and procedural matters

11. (1) Application by the Member for the admission of further documentary evidence.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Member sought to introduce documentary evidence of a recent assessment of him for ADHD. After the Member had provided a screenshot of an email dated 28 April 2026 sending him a copy of an outcome letter from [ . . . ], BACP did not object to the introduction of the assessment into evidence.

The report of assessment of the Member of 22 April 2026 by [ . . . ] was admitted as evidence.

12. (2) Application by the Member for his camera to be off when the Association’s witnesses gave their evidence.

The Member addressed the Panel on his health diagnosis and [ . . . ] statement that [ . . . ] felt he was grooming School Client 3. This was not a matter the Association pursued against him; however, it had had an enormous negative impact on his mental health and he did not wish the Association’s witnesses to see him as distressed as he was.

The Panel heard submissions on the issue of the Member being visible when witnesses were giving evidence.

The Panel was advised by the Clerk on the provisions of paragraphs 5.6 k. and j. of the PCP.

The decision of the Panel was to accept a modification of the Member’s application for the following reasons:

(a) the Member had a mental health diagnosis of [ . . . ] ,

(b) as a consequence of his mental health diagnosis, the Panel would treat the Member as vulnerable,

(c) the list of reasonable adjustments at paragraph 5.6 j was not exhaustive; the Panel considered there was a potential solution to the Member’s wish not to be seen by the Association’s witnesses that would be an appropriate reasonable adjustment in his particular circumstances.

The Panel determined that a practical way forward was, when the Association’s witness were giving their evidence, that [ . . . ] be visible on screen and that just enough of the side of the Member’s body would be visible on screen so that the Member could be sufficiently seen to be present.

13. (3) Application by the Member that his questions be put to the Association’s witnesses other than by him.

After [ . . . ] had opened the Association’s case, the Member raised the issue of the questions he had of the Association’s witnesses being put to them in a way other than him speaking to them himself.

After discussion with the parties, the decision of the Panel was that the Member would email his questions to [ . . . ], the member of staff of the Association facilitating the hearing, who would forward them to the Panel and to the clerk and that, subject to the Panel considering them to be relevant to the matters it had to determine, the Chair of the Panel would put the questions to the witness.

The Allegations

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

Allegation 1

1.1 Whilst employed by [ . . . ] the Member failed to act with honesty and integrity in that he:

a. Requested his Supervisor to overclaim supervision hours from [ . . . ]; and/or

b. Misrepresented to [ . . . ] the number of students with whom he had appointments; and/or

c. Falsely informed his Supervisor that he had informed the [ . . . ] Safeguarding Lead of an issue involving a client who may have been subject to a sexual assault; and/or

d. Misrepresented the number of students he was meeting with to his Supervisor.

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 the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

43 We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.

72. Supervisees have a responsibility to be open and honest in supervision and to draw attention to any significant difficulties or challenges that they may be facing in their work with clients. Supervisors are responsible for providing opportunities for their supervisees to discuss any of their practice-related difficulties without blame or unjustified criticism and, when appropriate, to support their supervisees in taking positive actions to resolve difficulties.

1.3 Allegations 1.1 a), b), c) and d) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

1.4 Allegations 1.1 a, b, c and d are allegations of dishonesty.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to report a safeguarding concern regarding a client who disclosed details of a sexual assault.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

9. We will give careful consideration to how we manage situations when protecting clients or others from serious harm or when compliance with the law may require overriding a client’s explicit wishes or breaching their confidentiality.

2.3 Allegation 2.1 amounts to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a student in that he:

a. Engaged in extended and/or extra therapeutic sessions with the student; and/or

b. Engaged in inappropriate informal contact with the student outside planned sessions; and/or

c. Provided his personal telephone number to a member of the student’s family.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

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

3.3 Allegations 3.1 a), b) and c) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 4

4.1 The Member failed to keep adequate records in relation to his clients in that he:

a. Failed to keep notes of client sessions for a period of at least a year ending November 2022; and/or

b. Failed to properly record contact with outside agencies regarding clients.

4.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

15. We will keep accurate records that:
• are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided
• comply with the applicable data protection requirements.

Allegation 5

5.1 The Member acted outside his area of competence in that he:

a) told a client that she displayed bipolar tendencies; and/or

b) encouraged the client to take a bipolar assessment online.

5.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 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.

15. The Member admitted Allegation 4.1 a

Evidence Documentary evidence

15. The following documents were before the Panel at the commencement of the hearing.

• Association papers: 82 pages
• Member’s papers: 80 pages

that part of the report of the Investigation and Assessment Committee sitting on 21 March 2025 that set out the Allegations which it had put forward to a Disciplinary Track

Hearing

• the Association’s Professional Conduct Procedure
• a number of the Association’s procedural documents
• report dated 22 April 2026 of an assessment of the Member for ADHD: 11 pages
• screenshot of email dated 28 April 2026 to the Member attaching the above assessment.

16. At the time of the parties’ closing submissions, [ . . . ] provided an Evidence matrix identifying those parts of the evidence that the Association relied upon in support of each Allegation.

Witness evidence

17. The Association relied upon the evidence given under affirmation of the following witnesses in the order listed:

(a) [ . . . ], who adopted her witness statement dated 5 August 2025 together with 4 exhibits

(b) [ . . . ], who adopted her witness statement dated 17 June 2025 together with 2 exhibits

(c) [ . . . ], who adopted her witness statement dated 11 August 2025 together with 2 exhibits

Each witness was cross examined by the Member through questions put through the Chair and was asked questions by the Panel.

18. The Member gave his evidence under affirmation and was cross examined by Ms Birks and was asked questions by the Panel.

Facts and Professional Misconduct

19. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Clerk:

(a) the burden of proof is on the Association to prove factual Allegations 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1; the Member does not have to prove or disprove anything;

(b) the standard of proof for the factual allegations is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities; is it more likely than not that an allegation as alleged happened. The standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, but where a serious allegation is made, such as here, dishonesty, the evidence must be more cogent and the Panel should carefully scrutinise it;

(c) Allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 allege that the Member failed to do an identified matter. A failure imports a duty, an obligation, on the Member to take the action that it is alleged he failed to take. In the first instance the Panel is required to be satisfied that there was a duty/obligation on the Member to do what it is said he failed to do. If the Panel is satisfied that there was a duty/obligation, then it goes on to consider whether the Member failed to do this;

(d) hearsay evidence is a statement said to have been made by a person who has not given evidence before the Panel and the Panel has heard about it from someone who is a witness in this hearing. Hearsay evidence is admissible in these proceedings but the Panel is advised to treat it with caution as it is unable to test the accuracy of it:

(e) where there is a dispute of evidence the Panel is required to consider the credibility of a witness. The demeanour of a witness is only one factor to take into account when assessing credibility. The Panel should take into account the way a witnesses evidence fits in with any non-contentious evidence or contemporaneous documents and any consistencies or inconsistencies both internally and with the evidence of others. It is important to avoid the fallacy of supposing that, because a witness has confidence in their recollection and is honest, the evidence based on that recollection provides any relatable guidance to the truth;

(f) the Panel may accept some of the evidence of a witness and reject other parts;

(g) the Panel may draw inferences, but may not speculate;

(h) the Panel has heard reference to an investigation carried out by [ . . . ] and to findings made in that investigation. The Panel is required to come to its own decisions about each of the Allegations and to do so based on the evidence that is before it;

(i) the Member is of good character, that is, he has no adverse fitness to practise history or anything else that would amount to bad character. This has two consequences. The first is that a person of good character is less likely to behave wrongly than person of bad character; they have less propensity for wrongdoing. The second is that it goes to credibility of the Member. Good character is not a defence but is a matter to have in mind when considering propensity and credibility;

(j) Allegation 1.1 alleges a failure to act with honesty and integrity, Allegation 1.2 alleges a breach of paragraph 43 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 (the Ethical Framework) which itself alleges a breach of standard of honesty and probity, whilst Allegation 1.4 alleges dishonesty. Allegation 1.4 clarifies that Allegation 1.1 is an allegation of dishonesty;

(k) the test for dishonesty is in two parts:

(i) firstly you must ascertain subjectively the actual state of the Member’s knowledge or belief of the facts, and then consider,

(ii) whether the Member’s conduct was honest or dishonest applying the objective standard of ordinary people.

There is no requirement that the Association proves that the Member knew he was acting dishonestly by the standards of ordinary people; a belief may be unreasonable but genuine but it may be that an unreasonable belief is less likely to be genuine. You should consider whether there are explanations other than dishonesty for the Member’s conduct such as mistake, negligence or misunderstanding;

(l) it is only if the Panel finds any of the Allegations 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 or 5.1 proved that it goes on to consider Allegations 1.2, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2 and 5.2 which allege breaches of the Ethical Framework. For these Allegations there is no standard of proof; it is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgment whether, in its professional judgement, any factual matters found proved fall below the standards expected in the paragraphs identified.

(m) Allegations 1.3, 2.3 and 3.3 are allegations of Professional Misconduct, which is defined in the PCP as a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership may be warranted. Case law provides that to amount to misconduct, the Member’s conduct is required to have fallen seriously below the standards he was expected to have met as a member of the Association.

Findings and reasons on facts

20. The Panel made the following findings.

Allegation 1.1 a

Whilst employed by [ . . . ] the Member failed to act with honesty and integrity in that he

a. Requested his Supervisor to overclaim supervision hours from [ . . . ]. The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

The Association’s evidence in support of this Allegation is the evidence of [ . . . ], particularly her note of supervision of the Member of 30 May 2022. The Panel has significant doubts about the veracity of [ . . . ]s oral evidence that it was her practice to write her supervision notes during supervision sessions. It was clear to the Panel that on this occasion, the notes were clearly written after the session. For the purposes of this allegation, it notes that the supervision notes for this session were as follows:

‘Supervisee wants me to continue to log 1.5 hours with the school but only wants 1 hour supervision. I explained that I was not comfortable with this (after I had spoken with my supervisor who agreed) supervisee wanted the 1.5 to still count. I explained that if we do 1 hour then only 1 hour can be claimed, supervisee said would fill the 1.5 hours moving forward as this is what he needs to log for BACP.’
The Panel prefers the evidence of the Member on this Allegation that [ . . . ] note is inaccurate, that in the session he said he was happy for her to invoice [ . . . ] for the 1.5 hours that had been booked for his supervision. The Panel considers this to be an innocuous comment by the Member and is not critical of him for making it.

The Panel considers there to be an implication in [ . . . ] criticism of the Member that he did not have sufficient supervision hours to satisfy BACP’s requirements; the Panel has no evidence to support this.

The Panel does not find this Allegation proved, and notes that although [ . . . ] criticises the Member in the way she has as, in answer to a question from the Panel, her evidence was that, although the supervision session lasted for 1 hour, she claimed for 1.5 hours from [ . . . ] as this was what she was contracted for with [ . . . ] .

Allegation 1.1 b

Whilst employed by [ . . . ] the Member failed to act with honesty and integrity in that he:

b. Misrepresented to [ . . . ] the number of students with whom he had appointments The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

The Association’s witnesses are critical of the number of clients the Member was seeing, including the numbers he disclosed to others that he was seeing, particularly in light of the existence of a waiting list.

The Panel considers that the evidence of [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] demonstrates that they had a good working relationship, that they were familiar with the processes and documentation at [ . . . ] for accepting, supporting and discharging students and that they followed these processes and used the documentation thereby leaving an auditable record of their work.

The Member may be criticised for his admitted lack of familiarity with the processes and documentation at [ . . . ] for accepting, supporting and discharging students and for his admitted lack of proactively raising these matters. The Panel considers that there were the following consequences of the Member’s conduct:

(a) it is likely he had capacity to accept more students for formal appointments; these formal appointments being distinct from the more general pastoral work, which the Panel accepts the Member was advised to undertake and did undertake by walking around the school when he did not have formal appointments;

(b) he did not leave an auditable record of all the appointments he had or the pastoral work he undertook leaving [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] with the impression that he was not working the hours he was contracted to work.

The Association further relies upon part of an excel spreadsheet described by [ . . . ] as ‘his [the Member’s] list’; [ . . . ] evidence was that the list was inaccurate in that it included the name of at least one student who had not seen the Member. The Panel has not been provided with evidence of:

(a) who entered or contributed to the entering of data;

(b) when each datum was put in;

(c) whether the spreadsheet was open to multiple users to view, edit and update;

(d) whether the spreadsheet has been edited and/or updated, and, if so, when.

The Panel heard evidence from [ . . . ] that she had amended and updated the document after the Member left.

The Panel is not satisfied, therefore, on the balance of probabilities that this document is what [ . . . ] says it is.

The Panel considers the core of this Allegation to be that the Member is said to have misled others about the number of students who had appointments with him. The Panel does not consider the admission of low numbers of student appointments and the lack of an auditable record of the Member’s work to be evidence that the Member misrepresented to [ . . . ] the number of students with whom he had appointments..

Allegation 1.1 c

Whilst employed by [ . . . ] the Member failed to act with honesty and integrity in that he:

c. Falsely informed his Supervisor that he had informed the [ . . . ] Safeguarding Lead of an issue involving a client who may have been the subject of a sexual assault

The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

The Association’s evidence in support of this Allegation is the evidence of [ . . . ], particularly her notes of supervision of the Member of 6 October 2022 and 31 October 2022. The note for 6 October 2022 sets out what the Member is said to have said about School Client 3, whilst the relevant part of the note for 31 October 2022 reads:

‘[School Client 3] supervisee had told safeguarding lead and logged the sexual assault with the school (last time) safeguarding lead is getting support.’

The Panel repeats here its significant doubts about the veracity of [ . . . ] oral evidence that it was her practice to write her supervision notes during supervision sessions and adds that this causes the Panel to doubt the veracity of the notes and therefore the veracity of [ . . . ] evidence on this Allegation. In addition, the Panel considered [ . . . ] oral evidence on this Allegation to lack detail and context.

Contrary to its assessment of [ . . . ], the Panel considered the Member’s evidence on this Allegation to be detailed and that it was put into context. The Panel accepted the Member’s evidence that he sought clarification from School Client 3 who was insistent that this was not her personal experience but that she did not identify who the person was. The Panel also accepted the Member’s evidence that he had not told [ . . . ] that he had informed the [ . . . ] Safeguarding Lead about what School Client 3 had said and that he did not make a report to the Safeguarding Lead. The Member explained to the Panel that he did not make a referral because he accepted his client’s autonomy and had no information about the person to make a referral about.

Allegation 1.1 d

Whilst employed by [ . . . ] the Member failed to act with honesty and integrity in that he:

d. Misrepresented the number of students he was meeting with his Supervisor The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

The Association’s evidence in support of this Allegation is from [ . . . ]; in her supervision notes for 13 April 2022, 9 May 2022, 30 May 2022, 20 June 2022 and 25 June 2022, the issue of student numbers is referred to which the Panel considers can reasonably be read as meaning that the numbers are low. In contrast, the note for 6 October 2022 refers to ‘have been given 7 new clients, haven’t started yet.’

The Panel does not consider that the Member’s engagement with [ . . . ] about student numbers, overwhelmingly that they are low, is evidence of misrepresentation by the Member about the number of students he was meeting, particularly as the uncontested evidence before the Panel, including that of the Member, is that the number of students he was meeting for appointments was low.

Allegation 2.1

The Member failed to report a safeguarding concern regarding a client who disclosed details of a sexual assault

The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

For Allegation 1.1 c above, the Panel accepted the Member’s evidence that he sought clarification from School Client 3 who was insistent that this was not her personal experience but that she did not identify who the person was.

The Panel therefore finds this Allegation not proved as the safeguarding concern raised by School Client 3 did not relate to her, the client.

The Panel adds for clarity that it is not critical of the Member for not reporting a safeguarding concern about what he was told by School Client 3 as he would have been unable to report a concern about an unidentified person.

The Panel accepts the Member’s evidence that he contacted the Association’s Ethics Hub about the situation he found himself in who confirmed that he did not need to make a safeguarding referral in this situation.

Allegation 3.1 a

The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a student in that he:

a. Engaged in extended and/or extra therapeutic sessions with the student The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

In light of the identification of the client in Allegation 2.1 as School Client 3, the Panel proceeds on the basis that ‘the student’ in Allegations 3.1 a, 3.1 b and 3.1 c is School Client 3.

The Panel accepted the Association’s evidence that therapeutic sessions at [ . . . ] were timetabled to take place once per week and that this applied to School Client 3’s sessions with the Member.

On this point the Panel does not consider the Association’s evidence to be inconsistent with the Member’s evidence that, in addition to timetabled therapeutic sessions, he had a wider pastoral role:

(a) at the headmaster’s request he provided a ‘drop in’ service for students which took place over breaks and lunch times and that this service was used by students including School Client 3,

(b) he spoke with students as he walked around the school.

The Panel does not consider either of the above to have been ‘therapeutic sessions’ but to have been part of the Member’s wider pastoral role.

The Panel also accepts the Member’s evidence that on one occasion, the headmaster left School Client 3 with the Member for a unspecified period of time. The Panel does not consider this to have been a therapeutic session but to have been a task undertaken by the Member at the request of the headmaster.

Allegation 3.1 b

The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a student in that he:

b. Engaged in inappropriate informal contact with the student outside planned sessions

The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

The Panel has considered that the contact which the Member had with School Client 3 was outside of timetabled therapeutic sections and was separate from the matters considered in Allegation 3.1 b:

(a) email contact was made using the [ . . . ] email

There was no evidence before the Panel other than that the Member had received an email from School Client 3 via his school email account.

(b) email contact using non-[ . . . ] email

The Member’s evidence is consistent with the emails seen by the Panel, that School Client 3 contacted him via his Psychology Today profile. The Panel considers it appropriate that the Member responded to School Client 3’s email and further considers the content of his email in response to have been appropriately worded.

(c) contact with an external agency

The Member accepts that he attended one meeting with the Youth Offending Team (YOT) with School Client 3. The Member explained that he did so in response to an email from the [ . . . ] safeguarding lead and that after he arrived at the meeting, it was clear that his attendance was not required and he left.

The Panel does not consider this meeting to have been ‘informal contact’. There is evidence before the Panel that School Client 3 had some involvement with police. In these circumstances, the involvement with the YOT was likely to have formed part of structured support for School Client 3.

The Panel considers the Member’s attendance to have been ill advised; if he had had more experience of a school setting or had been working in an environment in which he felt he could seek advice, he would have known or would have been advised not to attend. The Panel does not, however, consider the Member’s conduct to have been ‘inappropriate’ as he was attending at the request of [ . . . ]’s safeguarding lead.

Allegation 3.1 c

The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a student in that he:

c. Provided his personal telephone number to a member of the student’s family The Panel finds this PROVED.

The Panel considers the Association’s evidence on this Allegation to be cogent. Both [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] provide first hand evidence that the Member said in their presence that he had provided his telephone number to a member of School Client 3’s family. Further, both [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] say that they took this to the deputy safeguarding lead/their manager. The Panel considers the escalation of the matter by [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] to be persuasive.

Allegation 4.1 a

The Member failed to keep accurate records in relation to his clients in that he:

a. Failed to keep notes of client sessions for a period of at least a year ending November 2022

The Panel finds this PROVED.

The Member admits this Allegation.

This admission is consistent with the evidence of [ . . . ] and [ . . . ].

Allegation 4.1 b

The Member failed to keep accurate records in relation to his clients in that he:

b. Failed to properly record contact with outside agencies regarding clients

The Panel finds this PROVED solely in relation to School Client 3 and one YOT meeting

The Panel’s finding of the Member’s contact with any outside agencies is limited to one YOT meeting with School Client 3. The Panel recognises that this was not a therapeutic session with School Client 3 but considers that, as the meeting formed part of structured support for School Client 3, for the purposes of continuity, there was an obligation on the Member to have made a record, albeit brief, of his attendance at this meeting.

The only evidence in support of this Allegation in relation to client(s) other than School Client 3 and other outside agencies comes from that part of [ . . . ] submission to the Association where she refers to outside agencies and the Member’s clients and what other clients’ families have said to her. The Panel considers that this lacks sufficient detail and context for the Panel to make a finding on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 5.1 a

The Member acted outside his area of competence in that he:

a. told a client that she displayed bipolar tendencies The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

Based on the evidence relied upon by the Association, the Panel is satisfied that the client identified in Allegations 5.1 a and 5.1 b is School Client 3.

The only witness who could give direct evidence of what the Member said to School Client 3 in session is the Member. [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] evidence cover what they say they saw on [ . . . ] whilst [ . . . ] evidence covered her note of a supervision session with the Member dated 31 October 2022; none of which covers the Member saying in session to School Client 3 that she displayed bipolar tendencies.

The Panel considers the Member’s evidence on this Allegation to be credible and coherent; that School Client 3 came to a session having completed an online questionnaire and that he discussed with her what the information said and advised her to see her GP. The Panel does not consider the Member’s oral evidence that he may have said to School Client 3 that she may be bipolar to be sufficient to prove this Allegation on the balance of probabilities, particularly as it accepts the Member’s evidence that he advised School Client 3 to speak to her GP.

Allegation 5.1 b

The Member acted outside his area of competence in that he:

b. encouraged the client to take a bipolar assessment online

The Panel finds this NOT PROVED.

The Panel accepts the Member’s evidence that after the session in which he discussed with School Client 3 the online assessment she had undertaken, he accessed a website and filled out a questionnaire with answers he thought best approximated School Client 3’s answers and that he logged this on [ . . . ].

The evidence of [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] refers to a bipolar assessment of School Client 3 having been logged on [ . . . ] by the Member. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [ . . . ] and [ . . . ] are describing the assessment filled in by the Member after the session with School Client 3 in which they had discussed the online questionnaire that School Client 3 had filled in and brought to that session.

Findings on Breaches of the Ethical Framework

21. The Panel went on to consider alleged beaches of the Ethical Framework.

22. Having found Allegations 1.1 a, 1.1 b, 1.1 c and 1.1 d not proved, the Panel was not required to consider Allegation 1.2. Nor was the Panel required to consider Allegations 1.3 or 1.4.

23. Having found Allegation 2.1 not proved, the Panel was not required to consider Allegation 2.2. Nor was the Panel required to consider Allegation 2.3

24. Having found Allegations 3.1 a and 3.1 b not proved, the Panel was not required to consider Allegation 3.2 in relation to these Allegations. Nor was the Panel required to consider Allegation 3.3 in relation to these Allegations.

25. Having found Allegations 5.1 a and 5.1 b not proved, the Panel was not required to consider Allegation 5.2.

26. Allegation 3.2 with reference to Allegation 3.1 c

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

The Panel finds this PROVED.

[ . . . ] was the Member’s place of work. School Client 3 was the Member’s client because she was a student at [ . . . ]. In these circumstances the Member’s professional point of contact for any matters about School Client 3 was through [ . . . ] and if this was to be by telephone, this was to be through a [ . . . ] telephone number. The Panel considers this to be a clear and appropriate boundary, in place to protect the Member as well as his school clients. By providing his personal telephone number to a member of School Client 3’s family, the Member breached this boundary.

27. Allegation 4.2 with reference to Allegations 4.1 a and 4.1 b

15. We will keep accurate records that:
• are adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the type of service being provided
• comply with the applicable data protection requirements – see www.ico.org.uk.

The Panel finds this PROVED in relation to the first bullet point for 4.1 a and 4.1 b

Records play a role in supporting continuity of care being provided by the professional currently providing that care and also to other professional(s) who may take over or share in providing care; the absence of adequate records may have a negative impact on the care provided to a client.

Findings on Professional Misconduct

28. Allegation 3.3 with reference to Allegation 3.1 c
Whilst the Panel is critical of the Member in providing his personal telephone number to a member of School Client 3’s family, it does not consider the Member’s conduct to be sufficiently serious to reach the threshold that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.

29. The Panel adjourned the matter to provide the Member with the opportunity to provide written submissions on sanction.

Sanction

30. Having determined that the Member had acted in contravention of paragraphs 15 and 33a 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. It reconvened on 30 September 2026 to do so having received and reviewed submissions from the Member.

The Evidence

31. The Panel has taken into account evidence received during the earlier stages of the hearing where relevant to reaching a decision on sanction, in particular character references from his employer and supervisor since the events in question. It has also taken into account the Member’s submissions by email on 18 July 2026.

Previous sanctions or complaints.

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

Submissions

33. The Member submitted that he had learnt from this experience, changed his practice and would not repeat his mistakes.

The Panel's Approach to Sanction

34. 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.

35. 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 (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;
iv. Suspension of membership, for a specified period not exceeding 18 months, or until specified conditions have been met;
v. Withdrawal of membership.

36. Protocol 14 of the PCP states that, in making 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.

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

38. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

a. The Member’s lack of experience at the time of the events in question.

b. The learning he has undertaken and changes to his practice since these events, as evidenced by his Supervisor and employer’s letters.

c. The time that has passed without further concerns being raised.

Findings and reasons on Sanction

• No order

39. The Panel first considered making no order and concluded that, due to the comprehensive remediation evidenced by the Member in relation to his record keeping, he does not pose a risk to the public or the reputation of the profession in that aspect. Accordingly, it concluded that it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to impose any sanction in relation to the Member’s contravention of paragraph 15 of the BACP Ethical Framework.

40. However, the Panel noted there was no evidence of retraining and minimal reflection by the Member in relation to his contravention of paragraph 33a of the BACP Ethical Framework – i.e. the establishment and maintenance of effective professional boundaries. Such failings are, in general, serious, and although the finding related to one instance of the Member providing his personal phone number to the parent of a client, it is nevertheless important to maintain professional boundaries.

• Written apology

41. The Panel then considered whether a written apology would be an appropriate sanction and concluded that, given the incident in question, the time that has passed and the context of where the Member was working, it would not be an appropriate sanction in this case.

• Requirement to demonstrate change or improvement

42. The Panel next considered whether a requirement to demonstrate change or improvement would be an appropriate sanction in relation to the Member’s contravention of paragraph 33a. It noted the minimal reflection and absence of further training in this aspect of practice and concluded that to be confident that the Member would not repeat this failing it needed to see him undertake appropriate training and embed it into his practice.

• Requirement to undertake training

43. The Panel next considered whether a requirement to undertake training was an appropriate sanction in relation to the Member’s contravention of paragraph 33a. It again noted the minimal reflection and absence of further training in this aspect of practice and concluded that it needed to see him demonstrate changes that showed that he had embedded his training into his practice to be confident that the Member would not repeat this failing.

Decision on sanction

44. The Panel therefore directed that the Member, within eight weeks, provide the BACP with:

1. evidence of having completed three hours of continuing professional development (CPD) in relation to the establishment and maintenance of professional boundaries.

2. a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice in relation to the establishment and maintenance of professional boundaries that;

a. reflects on what went wrong with and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong, with particular emphasis of the importance of establishing and maintaining professional boundaries;

b. demonstrates understanding of the harm that can be caused by failing to establish and maintain professional boundaries;

c. details what he has learned from these events and his CPD and what he has changed in his practice to prevent any repetition of what went wrong.

3. Confirmation that the Member has discussed his personal statement with his supervisor.

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