April 2026: RK, Membership Number 00972362, Registrant ID 394352

April 2026: Richard Kaye, Membership Number 00972362, Registrant ID 394352

Attendees

The Article 12.6 Panel, consisting of […..] (Chair), […..] and […..], convened on 9 January Year 4 to consider the information submitted by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (“BACP” or “the Association”) and the response from Richard Kaye.

The Member, Richard Kaye, was notified of the allegations and sent a copy of the information provided by BACP by letter dated 22 October Year 3. The allegations made against the Member are as follows:

1. That from November Year 1 to August Year 3 you have:

a) sent numerous and repeated email correspondence to the Association;
b) sent abusive, and/or threatening and/or inappropriate email correspondence to members of staff at the Association;

2. That in light of the matters set out in allegation 1 above, you have:

a) behaved in a manner which has brought or could bring the reputation of the Association into disrepute; and/or

b) behaved in a manner which has brought or could bring the reputation of
counselling and/or psychotherapy into disrepute; and/or

c) breached the Association’s Ethical Framework, in particular Paragraph 48 ‘We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute’;
such that you are unsuitable for continued membership of the Association.
The Member was formally invited to respond to the allegations. In his response, the Member stated in summary that:

1. The context of his correspondence with BACP was his professional involvement with a vulnerable adult, about whom he had significant safeguarding concerns.

2. He understands that his actions and communications were at times “intense, strongly worded, excessive and inappropriate” and regrets any distress they may have caused.

3. He recognises that his passion for justice and safeguarding can, under pressure, lead to overly forceful expression. He has since implemented reflective practices to ensure this does not recur.

4. He believed that BACP’s investigation of the first complaint against him did not adequately take into account the adult’s vulnerability. He further believed that the second investigation may have been retaliatory after he raised concerns regarding the earlier matter.

5. BACP’s investigations and the decision to impose a suspension order, which was subsequently lifted, led to him losing his income, becoming homeless and living outdoors during the Winter of Year 2/Year 3 which was extremely difficult.

6. He accepts that his email correspondence during these events was dysregulated and excessive. It arose from acute situational distress rather than from any enduring psychological condition.

7. He accepts full responsibility for his tone and has since reviewed his communication style, deeply examined his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. He practises mindfulness, daily journaling and anxiety alleviation techniques to ensure that he remains calm and balanced even under extreme stress and hardship.

Summary of Information

The Panel was provided with the following written materials:

 A 49 page bundle of emails from Mr Kaye to BACP.
 The letter of allegations to Mr Kaye dated 22 October Year 3.
 The formal response from Mr Kaye dated 4 November Year 3
 12.6 Terms of Reference
 Article 12.6 Procedure

Panel’s Decision

The Panel carefully considered all the evidence and the guidance submitted.

The Panel decided to recommend that the Board of Governors resolve to exclude Richard Kaye from membership of the Association pursuant to Article 12.6 of the Articles of Association, subject to any appeal of this decision.

The reasons for the Panel’s decision are as follows:

The Panel first considered the allegations against the Member and made the following findings.

1a) The Panel acknowledged that it had not seen all of the emails said to have been sent by the Member to the Association. However, it considered that the evidence before it was sufficient to demonstrate that his emails were numerous and repeated, in particular in that the Member sent a significant number of emails in quick succession outside working hours. It noted also that he accepted in his response to the allegations that his correspondence had been “dysregulated and excessive”.

The Panel therefore found Allegation 1a PROVED.

1b) The Panel considered the bundle of emails before it and noted the following examples:

24 January Year 2 6.00pm [….]

24 January Year 2 6.01pm [….]”

1 February Year 3 12.55pm [….]

2 February Year 3 9.31am [….]

2 February Year 3 8.00am [….]

4 February Year 3 12.07am [….]

4 February Year 3 12.02am [….]

In the light of these emails, which are a small number of examples of the very substantial number of emails sent, the Panel had no doubt that the tone and content of the Member’s correspondence to the Association was abusive, threatening and inappropriate.

It therefore found Allegation 1b PROVED. 1

2a) The Panel found that a Member corresponding with their professional regulator in the manner found in relation to Allegation 1 could bring the reputation of the Association into disrepute. It considered that a properly informed member of the public would be extremely concerned if the Association permitted the Member to continue to practise as a member, having so repeatedly demonstrated an inappropriate and unprofessional attitude to his regulator over such a protracted period.

It therefore found Allegation 2a PROVED.

2b) The Panel also found that a Member corresponding excessively and abusively with their professional regulator could bring the reputation of the counselling and/or psychotherapy profession into disrepute. It considered that a properly informed member of the public would be concerned if a member who - by the very nature of his role as a counsellor/psychotherapist has a responsibility to create safe space for clients to resolve emotional and behavioural issues - cannot control his communication and language when dealing with his professional body was providing counselling services to the public.

It therefore found Allegation 2b PROVED.

2c) In view of its findings above, the Panel found that the Member’s conduct had clearly breached the Association’s Ethical Framework, in particular Paragraph 48 ‘We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute’.

It therefore found Allegation 2c PROVED.

The Panel found therefore that the Member’s actions as found proved in the Allegations above make him unsuitable for continued membership of the Association.

The Panel went on to consider whether the mitigation put forward by the Member in his formal response to the allegations was sufficient to persuade it that it was not proportionate to invoke Article 12.6. It noted the following:

• Although the Member makes reference to the difficult circumstances of his life in Year 2/Year 3, he has provided no corroborative evidence of this and the Panel considered in any event that the “acute situational distress” the Member refers to does not justify or excuse his extreme and abusive correspondence over such a protracted period.

• Whilst the Member states that the correspondence occurred as a result of his homelessness, the Panel noted that the emails began prior to the date on which he stated that he became homeless and continued over a significant period of time.

• Although the Member demonstrates some limited insight into the causes of his behaviour, he has shown no insight into the impact of his conduct on the Association or the individual members of staff to whom his correspondence was addressed.

• The Member has not provided any reflection or insight into the impact of his conduct on the counselling profession or public confidence in the profession.

The Panel found therefore that the Member’s conduct in mounting a prolonged campaign of harassment, threats and abuse against named individuals at BACP amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Panel balanced the impact on the Member of implementing Article 12.6 with the need to protect the reputation of the Association and the counselling and psychotherapy professions. It was satisfied that it was just and reasonable in all the circumstances to implement Article 12.6.

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