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

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 the complainant joined [. . . ] Service in May 2010, when she was a trainee counsellor at the [ . . . ].  [ . . . ] Service allegedly operated under the umbrella of Phoenix Counselling Services. 

The complainant alleged that at her induction, Phoenix Counselling Services did not make her aware of the management structures, company policies or of any complaints procedures within the organisation.  She also alleged that there was no CRB check made.  The complainant allegedly expressed some discomfort with her supervisor, who had been appointed by Phoenix Counselling Services, over the fact that he was both her manager and supervisor, but she was allegedly told by her supervisor that this ‘should not be allowed to get in the way'.  She alleged that this "made it muddled" for her. 

The complainant stated that her first supervision sessions were "OK" although she alleged that her supervisor made negative comments about her training organisation, her therapist, and, in the course of their supervision relationship, about various other therapists.  In addition, he allegedly asked her to keep secret (from her training institute) the fact that he offered a form of body work to both clients and counsellors at the Centre, as well as the fact that he attended tantric sex weekends with his wife.  He allegedly offered to lend the complainant a DVD on the subject of tantric sex.  The complainant alleged  that the self-disclosure of the tantric sex weekends was inappropriate in the light of their relationship, in which she was a trainee counselling supervisee and the supervisor.  The complainant later brought this up with [ . . . . ], who was at that time part of the management team at Phoenix Counselling Services.  [ . . . ] indicated to the complainant that she could not see anything inappropriate in this disclosure made by the supervisor. 

The complainant alleged that in various supervision sessions her supervisor allegedly made derogatory remarks about BACP, about Therapy Today and about the nature of boundaries.  In addition, he allegedly appeared sleepy sometimes, and had difficulty in focusing on what the complainant was saying. 

Around February 2011, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly permitted the complainant's supervisor to invite her, along with some of the other counsellors, to take part in a form of body work free of charge as he needed to make up some hours.  The complainant's supervisor allegedly asked her to also keep this a secret.  

The complainant accepted the invitation and had about 13 sessions in all, whilst Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly permitted her to still be supervised for her counselling work, which was being provided by the person who was both her supervisor and the manager of Phoenix Counselling Services.  

At the first of these sessions the complainant was allegedly asked to undress in front of her supervisor.  At his request, she took off her bra, but refused to take off her pants as she was uncomfortable doing this.  She found the work very helpful until, at a session in August 2011, her supervisor allegedly informed her that she had a repressed sexual trauma and that the work would be more powerful if she took her pants off.  The complainant again refused, and was upset, allegedly leaving the session in tears.  At the next session, she allegedly told her supervisor that she was upset by the request to take off her pants and said that as he was also her supervisor she thought that boundaries were being breached.  The complainant's supervisor repeated that he did not think the treatment would work as well if she left her pants on and consequently she terminated the treatments.

In subsequent supervision sessions with her supervisor, he allegedly repeated his allegation that the complainant had a repressed sexual trauma, despite her denial.  The complainant talked to the organisation under whose auspices the body work was offered and later (June 2012) complained formally to this particular organisation. 

In August 2011, the complainant was promoted by her supervisor and the manager of Phoenix Counselling Services to the role of Associate Counsellor, despite the fact that she had not yet qualified as a counsellor.  The manager of Phoenix Counselling Services, who was also her supervisor, allegedly told her that she could use his private premises 2 afternoons a week and that he would "siphon off" [ . . . ] clients for her. Allegedly, this manager asked her to keep this secret from her colleagues in the organisation.  From October 2011, having qualified as a counsellor, the complainant did use her manager's private room, paying him a small fee, and seeing private clients there.  The manager of Phoenix Counselling Services was allegedly at that time the complainant's manager, supervisor and landlord.  However, when the complainant changed premises, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly stopped sending her clients from the organisation, saying that the associate scheme was not being extended beyond [ . . . ] Service.  However, the complainant alleged that others who rented rooms from the manager of Phoenix Counselling Services, were allocated clients from [ . . . ] Service. 

In [ . . . ], the complainant discovered that an ex-client had committed suicide.  The complainant had previously seen this client who had then not appeared for two sessions. However, he had made contact again, saying that he wanted to re-engage with therapy.  The complainant talked to Phoenix Counselling Services who allegedly told her that there was a policy that if clients did not attend twice, then they needed to go through the initial procedures again.  The complainant allegedly pointed out that the client was particularly vulnerable and had trust issues.  She further pointed out that if the client was not allowed to resume therapy he would see this as a rebuff.  The supervisor allegedly offered to hold onto the client's file and reallocate the client to another therapist, if the client demonstrated a commitment to the therapy and called the supervisor.  The complainant emailed the client with the decision.  The client committed suicide by hanging himself the next month.  On discussing this with colleagues, the complainant allegedly discovered that this policy was not necessarily adhered to.  This again raised questions for her as to the alleged unethical practices within Phoenix Counselling Services.  

The complainant stated that at this time she was beginning to doubt her supervisor's integrity, particularly after the supervision session in which she allegedly experienced him repeating that she had an early sexual trauma.  However, she felt herself to be alone in this experience. She was also ashamed that she had kept secrets from her training institute. 

On 12 June 2012, the complainant had a conversation with  a colleague, which appeared to confirm to the complainant her doubts about the integrity of the organisation.  The colleague suggested that the complainant contact the body work training organisation directly and also asked if she could cite the complainant's name to others in the organisation who allegedly had similar issues. 

On 15 June 2012, the complainant gave notice that she was considering winding down her clients at [ . . . ] Service.  On 19 June 2012, she wrote a longer email to the manager of Phoenix Counselling Services expressing some of her concerns about her manager/supervisor.  Her manager/supervisor responded saying that he would like to "engage with" the issues she had brought up, but allegedly this did not happen.  

Phoenix Counselling Services agreed that the complainant should arrange supervision with someone other than her current supervisor.  The complainant arranged supervision with an executive director of Phoenix Counselling Services, [ . . . ], who was at this time, part of the management team at Phoenix Counselling Services, and who then rescinded the offer a couple of days before the supervision was due to take place.  [ . . . ] initially refused to give an explanation for the change in arrangements, but later, at an informal meeting with the complainant, she allegedly explained it was because she had heard the supervisor's version of events and that she did not herself see that what the complainant raised was an issue of complaint.

The complainant then sent an email expressing her concerns more formally to the newly appointed management team, explaining that she had already been in touch with BACP. [ . . . ], speaking for the management team of Phoenix Counselling Services, refused to respond in full to the allegations until the complainant stated whether or not she was making a complaint with outside bodies. 

At this stage the complainant discovered that [ . . . ] Service was not a member of BACP, as she had been led to believe, although Phoenix Counselling Services, the parent body is an organisational member.  

The complainant further alleged that she and others who complained about the supervisor at Phoenix Counselling Services, were bullied and threatened and that she herself experienced cyber-bullying from Phoenix Counselling Services.

The Panel, in accepting this complaint was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, and those in particular as follows: 

1.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to clarify the terms on which its services were being offered to the complainant, as a trainee counsellor and supervisee, in that it failed to make the complainant aware of the management structures, company policies or of any complaints procedures within the organisation, at her initial interview.  Further, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not provide adequate information to the complainant as to whom she could approach to report any concerns she may have had with regard to the organisation or her supervisor.  

2.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to avoid the conflicts of interest that arose from the relationships where the complainant's supervisor was her manager, her body work therapist and landlord.  Further, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to avoid the conflicts of interest arising from allowing a manager to offer counsellors, including the complainant, within the organisation, and to its clients, vouchers for body work to enhance the manager's own private work.  Once the conflicts of interest had arisen, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to address them by protecting the complainant's interest and maintaining her trust in the practitioner, which should be paramount.   

3.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to provide a good quality of care to the complainant, a trainee counsellor and supervisee, in that it allowed her supervisor/manager to approach the complainant to engage her in body work.  Further it allowed her supervisor, who had provided a form of body work allegedly requiring the removal of her clothes, to raise issues from that work inappropriately in her supervision sessions.  Phoenix Counselling Services also allegedly failed to provide to the complainant a good quality of care in that her supervisor was allegedly sleepy in her supervision sessions and had difficulty focusing on what the complainant was saying in the sessions. 

4.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to honour and respect the complainant's trust in allegedly, inappropriately, allowing the complainant's supervisor to disclose personal information to the complainant about himself regarding therapeutic body work, and his attendance at tantric sex weekends with his wife.  Further, Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to honour the complainant's trust in that she was allegedly asked to keep these disclosures secret from her training organisation. 

5.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to conduct its professional relationship with the complainant in a respectful and fair way, by allowing the complainant to be subjected to derogatory remarks about her therapist and her training institute, and through its electronic communications with the complainant making negative comments about the complainant and other counsellors in the organisation. 

6.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not treat the complainant or other colleagues in the organisation fairly, in that it made an individual arrangement with the complainant to siphon clients to the complainant, whilst also instructing her that this arrangement was to be kept secret from her colleagues in the organisation.   

7.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly allowed a number of relationships with the complainant to develop, in that her manager was also her supervisor, and that supervisor/manager was also her therapist and landlord.  Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not consider the implications of entering in to dual relationships with the complainant, which was ultimately to the complainant's detriment.  Further Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to be accountable to the complainant for the dual relationships.  

8.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to clarify the rights and responsibilities of both itself and the complainant in that it allegedly did not make it clear to the complainant that senior management might offer her therapeutic treatments, while she was in supervision and on placement with the organisation. 

9.        Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly abused the complainant's trust in that it allowed the complainant to be approached by her manager/supervisor, within the organisation, to offer her therapeutic body work, where advantage of the complainant was taken, as she believed that the body treatments would be more advantageous to her manager and supervisor, rather than to herself. 

10.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to provide a good quality of care and to act with integrity, and in the best interests of a client when it did not allow the complainant to resume counselling with a vulnerable client, despite his request to resume counselling, and despite the fact that other clients had allegedly been allowed to resume counselling with the same counsellor, following an unplanned break.

11.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not treat the complainant fairly in that latterly she was not allocated clients from [ . . . ] Service although other counsellors were so allocated. 

12.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not respond promptly and appropriately to the complainant's complaint, as initially raised in her email of 19 June 2012, failing to respond to it in a timely, appropriate and adequate way.  Further Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly acted inappropriately in refusing to engage with the complainant with regard to the matters of complaint unless she informed it whether or not she intended to submit a complaint about its service to BACP. 

13.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not conduct its professional relationship with the complainant in a respectful way, by rescinding the offer of supervision with another supervisor at short notice, prior to when supervision was due to take place, and without an initial explanation. 

14.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to appropriately monitor and review its work with the complainant, who was concurrently a trainee counsellor and a client of the organisation. 

15.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not try to remedy any harm it may have caused to the complainant. 

16.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly failed to engage in any consultation in order to ensure that the appropriate steps had been taken to mitigate any alleged harm caused to the complainant, and to prevent any repetition.

17.      Phoenix Counselling Services allegedly did not offer the complainant mediation or conciliation to resolve her issues with the organisation.

18.      Phoenix Counselling Services' alleged actions and behaviour, as alleged by the complainant, suggests a contravention in particular of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 33, 41, 42, 43, 45, 51, 52, 55 59 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Therapy 2010.  It also suggests a contravention of the ethical principles of being trustworthy, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, and justice, and the personal moral qualities of integrity, humility, competence, fairness and wisdom to which counsellors and psychotherapists are strongly encouraged to aspire. 

Findings  

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

1.        The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services had no explicit document setting out a written complaints procedure.  It had adopted an implicit unwritten "ad hoc" response to complaints. Phoenix Counselling Services thus did not provide the complainant with anything on paper that could be shared with her to which she could later refer.  Although she was provided with a list of counsellors when she joined Phoenix Counselling Services as a trainee, the complainant was not told who to approach if she had ethical concerns. 

The Panel found that the complainant was aware that there was no management structure in the usual way but that there was a team of four senior counsellors whose specific responsibilities within the organisation were unclear to her.  The Panel found however, that there was no explicit written statement as to the terms on which her services were being offered as a trainee counsellor and supervisee nor was she advised  of any organisational policies.   

The first part of the allegation is therefore upheld. 

The Panel found that the complainant did have concerns regarding her supervisor and that when she had those concerns she had not been told who she could approach to discuss those concerns other than her supervisor.   

The second part of this allegation is therefore upheld.  

2.       The Panel found that there was no conflict of interest in one of the directors of Phoenix Counselling Services being the complainant's supervisor, "manager" and hirer of rooms to her but the Panel was concerned that he was her bodywork therapist whilst fulfilling these other roles and considered that as such there was a conflict of interest.  Although Phoenix Counselling Services asserted that each applicant for one of the director's Rosen method Therapy was given the opportunity to discuss their suitability for that therapy, the Panel found that that the implications for the complainant of receiving the therapy from the person who was her supervisor were not discussed. 

With the exception of the allegation that there was a conflict of interest in respect of the complainant's supervisor being the sole director of Phoenix Counselling Services, the first part of this allegation is upheld. 

Whilst the Panel accepted that the term "manager" was not used, the Panel found that the complainant's supervisor did fulfil that role.  The
Panel found Phoenix Counselling Services failed to address the complainant's concerns as to the conflicts of interest and did not protect the complainant's interests or seek to maintain her trust in the practice.  The placing of vouchers in counsellors' files was not inappropriate if such vouchers were offered to the agency's clients since they were not in counselling with the complainant's supervisor; but the offer of free sessions to counsellors being supervised by the Rosen intern was not appropriate, and in this case it was ultimately to the detriment of the complainant.

This part of the allegation is upheld. 

3.         The Panel accepted the complainant's evidence that there was some crossover between the Rosen work and her supervision in that she was a counsellor in training but was offered the opportunity to undergo Rosen therapy with her supervisor and the Panel found that insufficient care was given to the impact that this could have on the complainant and the nature of the supervisory relationship.  In doing this it amounted to  failure of Phoenix Counselling Services to provide a good quality of care. 

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.   

The Panel accepted the complainant's evidence that the supervisor referred to some aspects of Rosen Therapy in the supervision sessions.  The Panel found that this did not provide a good quality of care in that, having been in therapy sessions which required the removal of some of her clothes, the complainant was then in supervision with the same person, where issues arising out of the therapy sessions were raised in supervision.  The Panel considered this was not appropriate or acceptable.   

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld. 

The Panel heard from both parties that the supervisor was sleepy in two supervision sessions.  The Panel heard that he was under stress at the time.  Given that it was agreed by the complainant that this only occurred twice and there was insufficient evidence that this affected the quality of the work provided to the complainant, the Panel did not consider that the supervisor's actions amounted to a failure to provide a good quality of care. 

This part of the allegation is therefore not upheld. 

4.         The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence available to the Panel to uphold the complaints that the supervisor disclosed personal information to the complainant about himself and his attendances at tantric sex weekends with his wife.  

This first part of this allegation is therefore not upheld. 

The Panel further found that there was insufficient evidence available to uphold the allegation that the complainant was asked to keep the disclosures regarding tantric sex secret from her training organisation. 

The second part of this allegation is therefore not upheld. 

5.         The Panel found that it was insensitive that during the complainant's first interview with regard to her placement at Phoenix Counselling Services, a representative should make derogatory comments regarding her therapist, however jocularly those comments were, particularly as at that time this person had only just met the complainant.  

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.  

The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence regarding the allegation that remarks were made about the complainant's training institute.   

This allegation is therefore not upheld. 

The Panel found that considerable evidence was given to support the allegation that Phoenix Counselling Services had failed to treat the complainant in a respectful and fair way through its electronic communications with her and had made negative comments about her and other counsellors in the organisation.  The Panel was further disturbed by the harsh and caustic comments by Phoenix Counselling Services made to and about the complainant both in the emails and at the hearing.  

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.  

6.       The Panel considered the arrangement regarding allocation of certain clients to the complainant to be acceptable, since Phoenix Counselling Services explained that counsellors who became sufficiently qualified were permitted in some circumstances to take particular clients into their personal practice.  The Panel felt it was reasonable to ask such counsellors to be discreet in talking about this arrangement, and that discretion did not amount to secrecy. 

This allegation is therefore not upheld.

7.       The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services allowed a number of relationships with the complainant to develop. However, the Panel was less concerned that the complainant's supervisor was her manager and the hirer of rooms to her than the fact that the supervisor  was also her Rosen Method bodywork therapist.  

The Panel did find that Phoenix Counselling Services did not consider the implications of entering into dual relationships and that this was to the complainant's detriment. 

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld. 

The Panel accepted that in the penultimate Rosen Method session the complainant was upset by comments made to her by her bodywork therapist who was her supervisor and the Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to address that and also her supervisor failed to do so.  The Panel found that insufficient consideration was given to the impact of that relationship upon the complainant, which the Panel considered to be detrimental to her.

The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to be accountable to the complainant for the dual relationship which it had allowed to develop in that it did not address the complainant's concerns when she raised this issue but considered her to be part of a wider conspiracy and that she was a troublemaker.  Further, when questioned, Phoenix Counselling Services refused to recognise that there was a detrimental dual relationship.

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld.  

8.       The Panel found that it was unreasonable to expect the supervisor to make clear to the complainant that during the course of her relationship, whether on placement or in supervision with Phoenix Counselling Services, she may be offered therapeutic treatments, particularly as this was not foreseeable at the time.  

This allegation is therefore not upheld. 

9.       The Panel found that when the complainant's supervisor offered her therapeutic bodywork through the Rosen Method, the complainant felt it might be valuable to experience for herself what clients who took up the same offer might be experiencing. She also felt it would assist her supervisor in gaining necessary hours' experience for his training.  The Panel found that the complainant trusted her supervisor, and was in awe of him and that she was also aware that her final qualification might be partially in his hands.  The Panel found that the supervisor took sufficient notice of the power imbalance and that ultimately he abused the trust put in him by her.  Given his standing within Phoenix Counselling Services, the Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services was responsible for allowing him to offer the Rosen Method to a supervisee.

This allegation is therefore upheld.  

10.     The Panel accepted the evidence of Phoenix Counselling Services that the vulnerable client was happy to accept the arrangement that he should be provided with a different counsellor at that time.  It could therefore, not be said that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to provide a good quality of care.  

This allegation is therefore not upheld. 

11.     The Panel accepted the explanation given to them that the reason why at a particular time no further clients were allocated to the complainant's private practice was because there was a paucity of clients being assessed who could afford the higher fee this entailed.  There was no evidence that other counsellors were treated differently.  The Panel therefore did not find that Phoenix Counselling Services failed to provide a good quality of care or act without integrity in this regard.  

This allegation is therefore not upheld.

12.     The Panel found that although the Complainant's supervisor responded to the email of 19 June 2012 within 6 hours, he did not respond in an appropriate way.  The supervisor answered in his email that the relationship between Phoenix Counselling Services and the complainant was at an end.  He did not address any of the concerns the complainant raised in her email, thus not giving the complainant the opportunity to deal with her concerns nor to deal face to face with Phoenix Counselling Services.   

This part of the allegation is therefore upheld. 

Furthermore the Panel found that it was inappropriate to refuse to engage with the complainant unless she confirmed that she had not  complained to the BACP.   

This allegation is therefore upheld. 

13.     In evidence, Phoenix Counselling Services accepted that with the benefit of hindsight it should have offered a different counsellor to the complainant for supervision and that it had failed to do so due to the strong feelings it had as to the nature of the complaint.  The Panel also found that in withdrawing an offer of supervision at the last minute, Phoenix Counselling Services did not conduct its relationship with the  complainant in a respectful way. 

This allegation is therefore upheld. 

14.     The Panel was satisfied that good arrangements existed within Phoenix Counselling Services for group supervision and one to one supervision in which the complainant's work as a counsellor was monitored and reviewed.  However, Phoenix Counselling Services did not monitor the outcome of the Rosen Method treatment for the complainant, having in the first instance not object to the supervisor offering such sessions.   

In that respect the allegation is partially upheld. 

15.     The Panel found that in addition to failing to remedy the harm the complainant had expressed in her correspondence and in the hearing, Phoenix Counselling Services not only did not remedy that harm, Phoenix Counselling Services exacerbated that harm in the way that it responded at the time, in its written evidence and in its responses during the hearing.   

This allegation is therefore upheld.

16.     The Panel found that at no time after the letter was written on 27 June 2012, did Phoenix Counselling Services seek to meet the complainant face to face to hear her concerns to be just and fair in hearing her concerns; nor to assess any harm that might have been caused to her with a view to mitigating it or preventing any repetition.  Instead it responded defensively and aggressively to the complainant without due or any consideration to the possibility of conciliation.  The Panel did not accept the assertion by Phoenix Counselling Services that its response was legitimate self-defence. 

This allegation is therefore upheld.

17.     The Panel found that Phoenix Counselling Services did not offer or give consideration to mediation to resolve the complainant's issues with the organisation.   

This allegation is therefore upheld.

18.     In the light of the above findings the Panel was satisfied that paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 8, 17, 41, 42, 43, 45, 51, 55, 59 and 63 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy and the ethical principles of being trustworthy, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice and the personal moral qualities of integrity, humility, competence, fairness and wisdom had been breached. 

The Panel did not consider that paragraphs 7, 11, 13, 33, 52 had been breached. 

Mitigation

While the Panel looked for some evidence of regret from Phoenix Counselling Services about the distress caused to the complainant it heard nothing that amounted to concern for her.  The Panel was told that a procedure for complaints had been written and that some learning had taken place although it was not clear to the Panel what this was.

Decision

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

Sanction

The Panel determined that the only appropriate action in these circumstances 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)