May 2014: Phoenix Counselling Services, Reference no 101959, Exeter EX1 1JA (1)

The complaint was heard under the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, is that allegedly Phoenix Counselling Services allowed therapists to work unethically and without accountability and that Phoenix Counselling Services, as an organisation, behaved unethically in relation to policies, procedures and structure.

The complainant began counselling at Phoenix Counselling Services in [. . . ] and left the organisation, at Phoenix Counselling Services's request, in [ . . . ].

The complainant alleges that Phoenix Counselling Services allowed the Director/Owner to be her supervisor, manager and therapist concurrently.  The complainant states that she now knows that it was wrong for boundaries to be crossed and that the multiple relationships of therapist/client, supervisee/supervisor and manager/counsellor, allegedly initiated by the Director/Owner, should not have been allowed to happen.

The complainant alleges that within supervision, the Director/Owner would make comment about other colleagues, telling the complainant that one colleague had an eating disorder and revealing personal details regarding the complainant's college tutor.

In 2004, the complainant states that she was given additional responsibilities in covering Initial Appointments (IA), and was given the title of Associate Counsellor, and later, Senior Counsellor.  She was also paid for her counselling work, although she alleges that the Director/Owner asked her to keep quiet about this as not all counsellors were getting paid.  The complainant states that this made her feel special.

The complainant alleges that Phoenix Counselling Services asked its counsellors to retain the monies paid to Phoenix Counselling Services until the end of the month, when the counsellors would deduct what they were owed, and pay the remainder back to Phoenix Counselling Services.  The complainant alleges that this was in order that less money would be shown coming in on the agency's books.

In 2009/2010, the complainant's personal relationship was going through sexual difficulties.  The Director/Owner allegedly offered to help by "offering his body" and working at a physical and sexual level.  The complainant did not like the sound of this particularly, but she was persuaded by the Director/Owner and also by a colleague, who allegedly had herself experienced the form of therapy. 

Within the therapy room the complainant alleges that she and the Director/Owner took their clothes off.  The complainant was not comfortable, so the Director/Owner said that they should lie down on some big cushions.  The Director/Owner allegedly felt the complainant's breast at which stage she stopped the therapy.  

The complainant says that she blamed herself for what had happened, feeling that she had allowed herself to be abused.  However, she was able to explore these issues with a different therapist and came to the understanding that she was not personally responsible.

The complainant alleges that after this incident the Director/Owner's behaviour toward her changed. The complainant felt that he rejected and isolated her and brought this up in supervision with him.  The Director/Owner allegedly said that it was he who felt rejected by the complainant.  The complainant states that she was shocked by this as she was the client, and he the therapist.  

The complainant states that whilst the Director/Owner's alleged behaviour towards her following this incident, meant that she nearly left Phoenix Counselling Services, she stayed in order to "save others by being part of a group".  She requested supervision from a different source but the Director/Owner allegedly refused her request on the grounds that they needed to be in regular contact. 

The complainant alleges that Phoenix Counselling Services do not have continuity around client procedures.  She alleges that a client who returned to counselling after some months break was not invited to an Initial Appointment but passed to another counsellor with the original form.  The complainant alleges that this was potentially devastating for the client, as contacting the client by post may have allowed her abusive brother to find her new address.  The complainant alleges that on other occasions, the Director/Owner has insisted on returning clients coming for an IA. 

At this stage, the complainant spoke to the Non-Executive Director at Phoenix Counselling Services, about her concerns.  A meeting was arranged for 26 June 2012, which included the Non-Executive Director.  As a consequence of the meeting, a letter was sent to the Director/Owner of Phoenix Counselling Services the next day, expressing that the complainant, along with others, had concerns.  The complainant alleges that the reply to the letter was threatening and the complainant and other counsellors were asked to leave the service by early to mid-July. 

On 6 July 2012, as the complainant was about to begin a counselling session, she was requested to meet the newly-appointed Executive Director.  The complainant alleges that this was unprofessional behaviour.  

The complainant alleges that, whilst Phoenix Counselling Services had agreed she could take clients with her into private practice when she left Phoenix Counselling Services, she was effectively barred from doing this with one couple who were allegedly told that this would be against Phoenix Counselling Services policy.  

The complainant alleges that Phoenix Counselling Services breached her confidentiality by disclosing the correspondence between herself and Phoenix Counselling Services to its volunteers and staff. 

The Panel, in accepting this complaint, was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting a contravention of the Code of Ethics & Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors 1996, the Code of Ethics & Practice for Counsellors 1998 and the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2009 & 2010 and those in particular as follows: 

1.    Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly, through the auspices of its Director/Owner, provided both counselling and supervision services to the complainant over a simultaneous period of time prior to April 2002.   

2.    Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly held dual and multiple relationships with the complainant in that, through the auspices of its Director/Owner, she was being managed and provided with supervisory and therapeutic services, which were to her detriment, creating an inappropriate power imbalance in the relationship and diminishing her autonomy.  Further, Phoenix Counselling Services failed to be accountable to the complainant for the dual and multiple relationships.   

3.    Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly abused the complainant's trust in running Rosen Therapy alongside other forms of therapy where sexual and emotional advantage was taken of the complainant as a vulnerable client. 

4.    Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to provide the complainant with a good quality of care, through the auspices of its Director/Owner, who managed, supervised and provided personal therapy to her, in that it allowed her as a vulnerable individual to be inappropriately approached by its personnel to persuade her to take up an offer of body work, which she was reluctant to accept and which she subsequently believed to be abusive to her. 

5.    Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to prevent conflicts of interest arising from the multiple relationships held with the complainant and further failed to respond to the conflict of interests to the complainant's detriment.    

6.    Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that from July 2012 onwards it inappropriately disclosed information to counsellors and volunteers within the organisation pertaining to the complainant and in doing so also abused her trust. 

7.    Phoenix Counselling Services, through the auspices of its Director/Owner, allegedly abused the complainant's trust and failed to provide her with a good quality of care in that she was allegedly inappropriately told to maintain secret that she was one of the first paid counsellors and that this was something that would not be on offer to all the counsellors.   

8.    Allegedly Phoenix Counselling Services, through the auspices of its Director/Owner, in making derogatory comments during supervision about colleagues was evidencing poor practice and in doing so was not encouraging the supervisee to enhance and maintain good practice and support the protection of clients.    

9.    Allegedly Phoenix Counselling Services was not honest, straightforward and accountable in financial matters in that it made arrangements with its counsellors such that less money would be shown coming in on the agency's books. 

10.  Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly abused the complainant's trust and diminished her autonomy in that it encouraged emotional and financial dependence in that she was told that she was to be exceptionally a paid counsellor and which was to be kept secret; she was verbally given the title Senior Counsellor, which made her feel special, and she was subject to multiple and dual relationships within the organisation.  

11.  Allegedly Phoenix Counselling Services did not provide a good quality of care in that there was an inconsistent and inadequate approach to the client procedures regarding Initial Appointments and returning clients. 

12.  Following the Rosen therapy session with the Director/Owner, the complainant during supervision with the Director/Owner, raised the issue that she felt rejected by him.   Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly, through the auspices of its personnel, attempted to turn it around by indicating that it was the complainant that was rejecting the supervisor and in so doing Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to respond appropriately to the grievance raised by the complainant or endeavour to remedy the harm that may have been caused to her. 

13.  On 6 July 2012, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to provide the complainant and her client with a good quality of care, in that having already received what she perceived as an aggressive and accusing email from Phoenix Counselling Services, the complainant was then put in a difficult position when she was approached by Phoenix Counselling Services personnel at a time when she was entering the counselling room with a client.  Whilst the intervention was allegedly to invite the complainant to a meeting, the effect was to raise feelings of fear and anxiety for the complainant given the timing of the request and the fact that the meeting was due to take place in the Director/Owner's room.  

14.  Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to respond appropriately to a letter of complaint, expressing deep concern and urgency, raised by the complainant.  Further Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not endeavour to remedy any harm it may have caused to the complainant nor sought to utilise independent dispute resolution nor informed the complainant about the existence of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure. 

15.  The alleged actions and behaviour of Phoenix Counselling Services, as experienced by the complainant, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs B.1.6 of the Code of Ethics & Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors, paragraph B.5.2 of the Code of Ethics & Practice For Counsellors 1998, paragraphs 1, 4, 11,18, 27, 33, 34, 52, 54 and 55 of the Ethical Framework for Counselling & Psychotherapy 2009 and paragraphs 1, 4, 11, 17, 20, 33, 34, 41, 42, 45, 46, 60, 62 and 63 of the Ethical Framework For Counselling & Psychotherapy 2010, a contravention of the ethical principles of Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice and Self-respect in the Ethical Framework for Counselling and Psychotherapy 2009 & 2010 and the ethical principle of Fidelity in the Ethical Framework for Counselling & Psychotherapy 2009 and the ethical principle of Being Trustworthy in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2010, and a lack of the personal moral qualities of empathy, integrity, respect, humility, competence, fairness and wisdom to which practitioners are strongly encouraged to aspire as outlined in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2009 & 2010.    

Findings  

On balance having fully considered the above the Panel made the following findings:- 

1.        The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services through the auspices of one of its directors did not provide both counselling and supervision services to the complainant for a simultaneous period of time prior to April 2002.  The Panel found that the complainant did not start both counselling and supervisory services with a Director/owner of Phoenix Counselling Services until 2005. 

This allegation is therefore, not upheld.  

2.        The Panel found that there were dual and multiple relationships which created confusion for the complainant, in that the Director/owner supervised the complainant's client work and provided therapy to her.  The Panel heard evidence from both parties that the supervision of the complainant by the Director of Phoenix Counselling Services was carried out either in the premises of Phoenix Counselling Services or in the private premises of that Director/owner and reference was made during the supervision sessions to the private therapy that the Director/owner and supervisor was providing to the complainant, both at the private premises and in the premises of Phoenix Counselling Services.  The complainant demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that personal references to herself in supervision went beyond her work with clients and that as a result of the multiplication of relationships she felt beholden to her supervisor as the then sole Executive Director and owner of Phoenix Counselling Services.  The Panel did not accept Phoenix Counselling Services' contention that, even though the complainant was in therapy with the Director alongside a supervisory relationship, there was no power imbalance nor a diminution of the complainant's autonomy. 
The Panel however accepted the complainant's evidence relating to the power imbalance in the relationship and that she felt beholden to her
supervisor, diminishing her autonomy in relation to accepting the offer of private therapy. 

Further the Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to be accountable to the complainant for the multiple and dual relationships; and despite Phoenix Counselling Services asserting that there were discussions of the dual relationship between the parties, there was sufficient evidence to show that the dual and multiple relationships were ultimately to the complainant's detriment given the power imbalance described by her.

This allegation is upheld.

3.        The Panel interpreted the allegation to other forms of therapy where sexual and emotional advantage could be taken of the complainant as relating to the alleged bodywork session that the complainant described, and not Rosen Therapy itself, as both the complainant and Phoenix Counselling Services stated that the Rosen Method was not used in their relationship.   

Although Phoenix Counselling Services denied there was any bodywork therapy session with the complainant, the Panel accepted the complainant's recollection of a single bodywork session in which she became very distressed and left the session prematurely.  Her recollection was convincing and the Panel found that she experienced emotional advantage being taken of her of a sexual nature which amounted to an abuse of her trust.  This was compounded by the fact, which the Panel accepted, that the complainant owned to having sexual difficulties at the time which had been discussed with the Director who was her supervisor.  The complainant said that both during and following the incident "she had switched off", which the Panel considered to be consistent with the experience of perceived abuse.  The Panel accepted that the complainant's recollection was patchy in places because of the trauma that the therapy had induced and found her evidence convincing.  The complainant's recollection, which the Panel accepted, of her being tearful going to the session demonstrated her vulnerability at the time of this single bodywork session.   

This allegation is upheld.

4.        The Panel found that although it was unclear to the complainant the precise offer made to her by her Supervisor, who was also a Director and owner of the Phoenix Counselling Services, the Panel accepted that an offer was made, which led to a bodywork session.  The Panel accepted the complainant's evidence that no explanation was given to her by her Supervisor as to what precisely would take place during that session; and that her supervisor suggested to her that they should both undress so that they were naked.  The Panel accepted the complainant's assertion that her supervisor touched her breast during the bodywork session, which she experienced as abusive to her. The Panel accepted that the total experience amounted to a failure by Phoenix Counselling Services to provide a good quality of care. 

This allegation is therefore, upheld.

5.        The Panel found that there were a number of relationships between the complainant and her supervisor who was also a Director and owner of Phoenix Counselling Services.  These were as the complainant's private therapist her supervisor and, in effect if not in title, her manager.  Whilst the Panel accepted that the term manager was not used by Phoenix Counselling Services to describe this role, it accepted that this role was performed by the complainant's supervisor.  The Panel further found that Phoenix Counselling Services took no steps to resolve the conflict of interest arising from the multiple relationships. This gave rise to confusion, given that supervision sessions took place both in the premises of the Phoenix Counselling Services and in the private offices of the Director/owner and this gave rise to the complainant experiencing detriment. 

The Panel found that the conflict of interest that arose as a result of the bodywork session was to the complainant's detriment and that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to respond to concerns which she later raised.   

This allegation is upheld. 

6.        The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services had failed to respect the complainant's privacy and confidentiality in that from July 2012 onwards, it had inappropriately disclosed information in emails to counsellors and volunteers pertaining to the complainant, and further both in a blog of one of the directors and on the website of Phoenix Counselling Services there was reference to the complainant although not identifying the complainant by name.  The content of the blog would have enabled the complainant to be identified by other counsellors and volunteers within the organisation.  The Panel found that this abused her trust.   

This allegation is upheld. 

7.        The Panel found it reasonable for Phoenix Counselling Services to ask the complainant for discretion when the paid counselling scheme was introduced and to suggest to the complainant that she be discrete as she was one of the first counsellors to be paid under the new scheme.  The Panel did not find that this was a breach of trust or a failure to provide a good quality of care.

This allegation is therefore, not upheld.

8.        Phoenix Counselling Services suggested that derogatory comments about others made to the complainant in supervision were made to promote care and concern for those colleagues to whom references were made.  The Panel, however, did not consider that this was sufficient justification, as the complainant was worried that the remarks made to her could also be made about her to other counsellors.  The Panel  considered that this was evidence of poor practice and did not encourage the complainant as a supervisee, to enhance and maintain good  practice and support the protection of clients.    

This allegation is upheld. 

9.        The Panel accepted Phoenix Counselling Services' statement that the financial arrangements that were made with the complainant and other counsellors was a process that was adopted following recommendation from accountants who had advised them as to the suitability of the scheme and had informed them that the same was legal.  The Panel therefore did not find on the balance of probabilities that Phoenix Counselling Services was not honest, straightforward and accountable in financial matters 

This allegation is therefore, not upheld.

10.     The Panel did not consider that being asked to treat the financial arrangement with discretion was the same as being asked for it to be kept secret.  The Panel found that the complainant may have been referred to as a senior counsellor but that she had not been given the title "senior counsellor".  This part of the allegation is not upheld.

The Panel accepted the evidence of the complainant that her position as a paid counsellor made her beholden to Phoenix Counselling Services and that this led to emotional dependence on the organisation, but not financial dependence.   

The part of the allegation that refers to emotional dependence is upheld. 

The Panel further found, as in allegation 5, that there were a number of relationships between the complainant and her supervisor/therapist and that these multiple relationships were ultimately to her detriment in that they diminished the complainant's autonomy and abused her trust and resulted in her experiencing emotional dependency upon the supervisor allocated by Phoenix Counselling Services. 

This part of the allegation is also upheld.

11.     The Panel accepted the statement of Phoenix Counselling Services that the match between clients and counsellors was a service issue and that there was a consistent and adequate approach to client procedures regarding initial appointments and returning clients.  The Panel did not find that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to provide a good quality of care in this regard. 

This allegation is not upheld.

12.     With the agreement of the complainant and the Phoenix Counselling Services the reference to Rosen was struck from this allegation.

The Panel considered that this allegation was about the rejection of the concerns the complainant allegedly raised in supervision regarding her bodywork therapy. In the hearing the complainant's supervisor/therapist expressed no recollection of the complainant raising the issue of the bodywork session with him.  The Panel accepted that the complainant was clear that she had raised the issue in a subsequent session. 

The Panel found that the supervisor/therapist's alleged reference to being rejected by the complainant may have been caused by the  complainant stating that she was going to see another therapist for counselling. 

Nevertheless, the Panel further found that the complainant did express concerns to her supervisor/therapist about the bodywork therapy and that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to respond to the issues raised by the complainant and failed to remedy the harm that this may have caused the complainant. 

This allegation is upheld.

13.     The Panel accepted that the effect of the request made by another Director of Phoenix Counselling Services to meet after a counselling session on 6 July 2012 raised feelings of fear and anxiety in the complainant, and that this followed what the Panel agreed was an aggressive and accusatory email sent to her by Phoenix Counselling Services.  The Panel accepted the complainant's evidence that this Director of Phoenix Counselling Services had spoken to the complainant outside the consulting room and further the Panel accepted the complainant's recollection that she had spoken to her within earshot of her client.  The Panel considered that in approaching the complainant in this way Phoenix Counselling Services had failed to provide the complainant and her client with a good quality of care.

This allegation is upheld. 

14.  The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services made no attempt to remedy the harm caused to the Complainant.  It made no enquiry as to the allegations; it was defensive in its actions and aggressive in correspondence.  In an organisation that purports to be "person centred" Phoenix Counselling Services failed to remedy any harm and took no steps whatsoever to utilise independent dispute resolution or mediation to resolve the issues. Instead it exacerbated the situation by sending threatening emails. Phoenix Counselling Services admitted that it did not draw to the complainant's attention British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy's Professional Conduct Procedure, arguing that the Complainant was a member of British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy, an argument not accepted by the Panel. 

This allegation is upheld.

15. In light of the above findings, the Panel was satisfied that there was no contravention of paragraphs B.1.6 of the Code of Ethics & Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors nor paragraph B.5.2 of the Code of Ethics & Practice for Counsellors 1998.  However, in light of the above findings the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 4, 11, 18, 27, 33, 34 and 55 of the Ethical Framework for Counselling & Psychotherapy 2009 had been breached.  The Panel did not consider that paragraphs 52 and 54 had been breached. Further the Panel was satisfied that in light of the above findings that paragraphs 1, 4, 11, 17, 20, 33, 34, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Counselling & Psychotherapy 2010, had been breached.  The Panel did not consider that paragraphs 60 and 62 were breached.  The Panel found that the ethical principles of Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence and Justice as contained in the Ethical Framework for Counselling and Psychotherapy 2009 & 2010 had been breached.  The Panel did not consider that the ethical principle of Self-respect had been breached.  The Panel found that the ethical principle of Fidelity and Being Trustworthy in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy 2010 had been breached.   The Panel further found that Phoenix Counselling Services showed a lack of the personal moral qualities of empathy, integrity, respect, humility, competence, fairness and wisdom as outlined in the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy  2009 & 2010.   

Decision

In light of these findings and the allegations that were upheld, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these amounted to serious professional misconduct.   

Mitigation

The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services through the auspices of one of its directors did acknowledge and admit that the approach to the complainant (as referred to in allegation 13) when a director wished to speak to the complainant could and should have been dealt with differently.  

Sanction 

The Panel determined that the only appropriate action in these circumstances, and given the gravity of the findings, was the withdrawal of Phoenix Counselling Services' membership of the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy. 

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