March 2016: Kim Kulenkampff, Reference no 569720, Herts HP3 9GF

Ms Kulenkampff was notified of the allegation and sent a copy of the information on 11 June 2015.  A summary of the allegation is as follows:

On 21 February 2015 Ms Kulenkampff sat the Certificate of Proficiency Test in London. On at least four separate occasions, Ms Kulenkampff was observed, by the Assistant Registrar for Entry and the Operations Assistant to be looking at the screen of another candidate.  It was alleged that Ms Kulenkampff would wait for the candidate sat near to her to make a selection on their screen before making that same selection on her own screen.

Ms Kulenkampff was notified at the Assessment that her alleged actions had been observed and she was subsequently asked to leave the Assessment.

Ms Kulenkampff submitted an email on 3 March 2015 in which she stated that she booked the Assessment three days after her arrival in the country and realised that this was too much for her, as when she sat down to answer the questions she began to panic.  She accepted that whilst her eyes did rest on the screen of another candidate, her intention was never to cheat and she was in a mind daze.

The nature of the information raised questions about the suitability of Ms Kulenkampff's  continuing membership of this Association and it raised concerns about the following in particular:

- She was allegedly observed on four separate occasions copying off the screen of another candidate

- Her alleged actions have brought, or may yet bring, not only this Association, but also the reputations of counselling/psychotherapy into disrepute.

- By virtue of her actions, her fitness to practise was impaired

- Her alleged behaviour was incongruent with that which is expected of a member of BACP.

- The information further suggested that there may have been a serious breach, or breaches, of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in  Counselling and Psychotherapy

Ms Kulenkampff was invited to send in a written response, and made a response.

The Panel carefully considered all the evidence disclosed, together with the response received from Ms Kulenkampff.

Panel's decision

The Article 12.6 Panel decided to implement Article 12.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association.  Ms Kulenkampff's membership would be
withdrawn subject to appeal.  Ms Kulenkampff had 28 days from the date of notification of this report to make an appeal.  In the absence of an appeal, notification would be given to Ms Kulenkampff by the Chair of the Association with regard to the withdrawal of membership. 

The reasons for the Panel's decision were as follows:

Ms Kulenkampff attended the Certificate of Proficiency event on the afternoon of 21 February 2015, at a venue in London.  Two members of BACP staff, [ . . . .] and [ . . . . ] were invigilating the test.  Ms Kulenkampff was asked to leave the assessment as both [ . . . . ] and [ . . . ] had witnessed behaviour that suggested Ms Kulenkampff had attempted to copy the answers of another candidate.

The Panel took careful account of the evidence before it and in particular noted the statements of both [ . . . ] and [ . . . ].  

In summary the Panel noted that [ . . . ] had stated that Ms Kulenkampff was caught looking at another candidate's laptop.  [ . . . ] stated that this
occurred on multiple occasions.  After a few minutes of observing Ms Kulenkampff, he asked [ . . . ] to watch Ms Kulenkampff's eye movements from where he had been observing.  [ . . . ] stated that he then moved to a position from where he was able to see both candidates' laptop screens clearly.
From this position he stated that he noticed a pattern emerge and that Ms Kulenkampff waited for the other candidate to select an answer, before choosing that same answer.  [ . . . ] stated that he saw this happen over 2 questions.  

In summary the Panel noted that [ . . . ] stated that between 1.40 and 1.45pm, her colleague, [ . . . ], asked her to change seats and to sit where he had been, as he had observed Ms Kulenkampff looking across at a screen of a fellow candidate. He had also observed from behind and the candidates were on the same screen. [ . . . ] asked [ . . . ] to monitor Ms Kulenkampff's eye movement, whilst he monitored for patterns in behaviour and selections made. [ . . . ] stated that she observed Ms Kulenkampff, on four separate occasions, looking across to the screen of the same candidate.  After about 5 minutes, she conferred with [ . . . ] and they decided it was necessary to ask Ms Kulenkampff to leave the assessment, Ms Kulenkampff readily agreed, allegedly saying "OK", this was at approximately 1.50pm. An email was sent to  Ms Kulenkampff on 3 March 2015 confirming the reason for the termination of her assessment and drawing her attention to "Attending the Certificate of Proficiency Assessment" which should have been available to her on the keyboard of her laptop and had been referenced by him in his introduction.

The Panel noted in Ms Kulenkampff's email to [ . . . ] dated 3 March 2015, she explained that she had booked her assessment three days after returning from [ . . . . ], and stated  she now realised this was too much for her.  She stated also, that she panicked when she sat down and began to answer questions; she stated that she felt an incredible fear of failing and that this is when her eyes looked around the room, to give herself some mental breathing room.  The Panel noted that Ms Kulenkampff stated "My intention was never to cheat and while my eyes did rest on one lady's computer screen I was in a complete mind daze that I wasn't aware where my eyes were looking"

When the allegation was formally raised by BACP Professional Conduct Ms Kulenkampff responded stating "..........I fully intend to take responsibility for my behaviour on that day. I was very much in a daze.............And it was not my intention to cheat".  

The Panel noted that whilst Ms Kulenkampff did not admit that she had cheated or attempted to cheat, she did not deny the allegation. The Panel noted that her words in her email of 3 March 2015 were "My intention was never to cheat.....", and that in her further email on 30 June 2015 she stated "And it was not my intention to cheat" The Panel was of the view that this amounted to an implied admission.  Further the Panel noted that Ms Kulenkampff also admitted that her eyes did rest on the screen of a particular candidate.   

The Panel found, that Ms Kulenkampff's behaviour during the assessment amounted to an attempt to copy another candidates answers.  The Panel gave weight to the statements of both [ . . . ] and [ . . . ], which in the Panel's view corroborated the allegation made, along with the responses made by Ms Kulenkampff, in which she did not deny the allegation.

The Panel was satisfied that the allegation had been proved to the requisite standard of proof required for such a serious allegation.

The Panel understood that Ms Kulenkampff may have been overcome with panic and a fear of failing and that she did not feel herself on the day, it was not satisfied that this detracted from the gravity of her actions.  Whilst the Panel noted that Ms Kulenkampff had indicated that she subsequently contacted a psychologist to work through and understand what had happened and that she was attempting to rectify her behaviour and take responsibility for her actions, it was not satisfied, based on her actions, that she was suitable for continued membership of the BACP. 

In conclusion the Panel found that Ms Kulenkampff's behaviour was not in keeping with the standards of trust and integrity as would be expected of a member of BACP. The Panel therefore agreed to implement Article 12.6 and withdraw Ms Kulenkampff's membership, subject to any appeal.

Having regard to the above, the Panel was unanimous that Ms Kulenkampff's actions were not congruent with the Ethical Framework for Good Practice and were incompatible with the ethical and behavioural standards that are expected of a member of BACP. Furthermore, the Panel considered that Ms Kulenkampff's actions demonstrated that her fitness to practice was impaired. The Panel also considered that Ms Kulenkampff's actions would result in the reputations of counselling and psychotherapy and BACP being brought into disrepute, if the public were accurately informed of all of the information.

Ms Kulenkampff did not appeal the decision and her membership was withdrawn.

Any future re-application for membership will be considered under Article 12.3 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

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