Professional Conduct notice / MH

March 2026: Marie Hunt, Membership Number 00626010 , Registrant ID 278954

Attendees

1. Marie Hunt is a former Member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP); for brevity, she will be referred to in this report as ‘the Member’. The Member did not attend the hearing nor was she represented. The decision of the Panel on 21 August Year 4 was that it would be fair and reasonable and in the public interest for this hearing to proceed in the absence of the Member.

2. BACP was represented by […] of Counsel as Case Presenter (the Case Presenter).

Introduction

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

[…]

4. […]

5. […]

6. […]

The Allegations

7. The allegations made against the Member are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 On one or more occasions between 6 October Year 1 and 7 July Year 2 , dates between which the former Member has accepted in open correspondence that […] was her client:

(a) permitted […] to look at/attend to her boiler, and/or

(b) permitted […] to look at/attend to her smoke alarm, and/or

1.2 The former Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a. and/or 33 b. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

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

b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client

Allegation 2

2.1 On one or more occasions when […] was her client and/or after […] had ceased to be her client, the former Member:

(a) provided information to […] about a […] visit of hers and/or

(b) met […] in a cafe and/or

(d) provided […] with dinner.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a. and/or 33 b. and/or 37 a. of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

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
b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client

37: We will avoid continuing or resuming any relationships with former clients that could harm the client or damage any benefits from the therapeutic work undertaken. We recognise that conflicts of interest and issues of power or dependence may continue after our working relationship with a client, supervisee or trainee has formally ended.

Therefore:

a. We will exercise caution before entering into personal or business relationships with former clients

Allegation 3

3.1 The former Member communicated information to […] that:

(a) was inappropriately sent by electronic means and/or

(b) was inappropriately sent at 22.19 and/or

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a. and/or 48 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

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

48: We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.

Allegation 3.1 is an allegation of Professional Misconduct.

Allegation 4

4.1 After becoming aware that the Complainant had made a complaint to BACP about her conduct, the former Member communicated with and attempted to further communicate with […] about:

(a) the complaint and/or

(b) her feelings about the complaint and/or

in a manner and/or with content and/or with a frequency that went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

4.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 37 c. and/or 48 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

Therefore:

c. We will be professionally accountable if the relationship becomes detrimental to the former client or damages the standing of the profession.

48: We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.

Allegation 4.1 is an allegation of Professional Misconduct.

Admissions

8. The Member provided a response to the complaint and also a later email to BACP. In her correspondence the Member provides some background and context to her conduct towards […] and apologies for any harm unwillingly caused to […] . The view of the Panel was that this correspondence did not amount to a clear acceptance of any of the Allegations so the Panel proceeded to consider all the matters alleged.

Evidence

9. The Panel received evidence on behalf of BACP in the form of:

(a) signed witness statement from the Complainant dated 25 April Year 4 with 3 exhibits;
(b) oral evidence under affirmation from the Complainant.

10. The Panel took into account:

(a) single page response from the Member dated 11 September Year 3 ;
(b) email from the Member dated 28 February Year 4 .

Documentary Evidence

11. In addition to the documents referred to in paragraph 9 above and […] written consent referred to in paragraph 5 above, the Panel also had regard to:

(a) the original complaint made by the Complainant and subsequent correspondence between her and BACP;
(b) its written decision of 21 August Year 4 ;
(c) BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP);
(d) procedural documents relating to BACP hearings;
(e) Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

The Panel’s approach to facts

12. In reaching its decisions on facts the Panel bore in mind that the burden of proof rests on BACP and it is for BACP to prove the Allegations, and that the Member does not have to prove anything. The Panel further bore in mind that the standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities, whether it is more likely than not that the events alleged occurred.

13. In assessing credibility, the Panel bore in mind that it should not start with an assumption or presumption that a witness is credible or telling the truth and is assisted in assessing credibility when there are differing versions of events by considering:
(a) the background to events provided by the parties;
(b) any contemporaneous documents;
(c) any consistencies/inconsistencies in a witnesses written or oral evidence.

14. A feature of this case is that the Panel had before it a number of screenshots of electronic messages of various types between the Member and […] that were exhibited by the Complainant to her witness statement.

15. The Panel was provided with legal advice from the Clerk on paragraph 4.9 of the PCP on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, in this case the screenshots. The view of the Panel was that the screenshots:
(a) were relevant to the matters it had to determine, and that
(b) it was fair to admit them as they had been provided to the Member and she had not challenged their authenticity.

16. The decision of the Panel was to admit the screenshots as evidence of what they said.

Findings and reasons on facts

17. The Panel made the following findings of fact.

Allegation 1.1 (a) On one or more occasions between 6 October Year 1 and 7 July Year 2 , dates between which the former Member has accepted in open correspondence that […] was her client:

(a) permitted […] to look at/attend to her boiler

Found not proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this Allegation came from:

• paragraph 5 of the Complainant’s witness statement: ‘I recall learning of another incident where the Member asked […] to fix her boiler’
• screenshots of electronic messages between Member and […] that read:

From […] ‘I will get the plumber to arrange the boiler for next week’

From the Member: ‘Boiler man’s just left can we reschedule for tomorrow please’

From the Member: ‘Hi […] I’ve just had a cancellation this eve so if you wish to pop round to take another look at boiler I finish at 7.30’

The decision of the Panel is that:

• read in context, the message from […] is about his own boiler
• the messages from the Member are consistent with an invitation by her to […] to look at her boiler, but are not evidence that […] did in fact look at or attend to the Member’s boiler
• the Complainant’s statement that she learned of the Member asking […] to fix her boiler does not reach the standard of proof required to establish that […] did in fact look at or attend to the Member’s boiler.

Allegation 1.1 (b) On one or more occasions between 6 October Year 1 and 7 July Year 2 , dates between which the former Member has accepted in open correspondence that […] was her client:

(b) permitted […] to look at/attend to her smoke alarm

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this Allegation came from screenshots of electronic messages from the Member to […] that read:

‘Thank you so much for looking at my smoke alarm’

‘Thank you so much for doing my smoke alarm this eve that was really sweet of you.’

The decision of the Panel is that the above screenshots are clear references to […] having looked at the Member’s smoke alarm and that he did so during the therapeutic relationship as the messages are each part of a series of messages that include references to sessions.

The Panel rejects the Member’s suggestion that permitting […] to undertake work in her house as a platform to encourage him to engage in the sessions is conduct that is an appropriate therapeutic intervention within a therapeutic relationship.

Allegation 1.1 (c) On one or more occasions between 6 October Year 1 and 7 July Year 2 , dates between which the former Member has accepted in open correspondence that […] was her client:

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this Allegation came from two separate screenshots of electronic messages from […] to the Member that read:

‘Thank you for tonight’s session, the Tuna pasta bake.’
‘It was lovely and tasty!’,

‘Thank you for my lovely dinner, it was VERY tasty.’

The decision of the Panel is that the above screenshots are clear reference to the Member having provided dinner to […] on at least one occasion and that she did so during the therapeutic relationship as the screenshots are part of a series of messages that include references to sessions.

Allegation 2.1 (a) On one or more occasions when […] was her client and/or after […] had ceased to be her client, the former Member:

(a) provided information to […] about a […] visit of hers

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this allegation is a screenshot of an electronic message from […] to the Member on 23 November Year 2 , ie after the ending of the therapeutic relationship, that reads:

‘Hope all is well following your […] visit.’

The decision of the Panel is that the above screenshot is consistent with the Member having told […] that she was to visit a […] and that […] sent this message to the Member after he had been made aware of this by the Member.

Allegation 2.1 (b) On one or more occasions when […] was her client and/or after […] had ceased to be her client, the former Member:

(b) met […] in a cafe

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this allegation is a screenshot of an electronic message from […] to the Member on 1 December Year 2 , ie after the ending of the therapeutic relationship, that reads:

‘The cafe in the square is lovely.’

The decision of the Panel is that the above screenshot is consistent with the Member and […] arranging to meet in a cafe. This is consistent with the Member’s written admission to BACP that:

‘As […] was no longer a client I agreed to meet for coffee. Which I paid for myself.’

Allegation 2.1 (c) On one or more occasions when […] was her client and/or after […] had ceased to be her client, the former Member:

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this allegation are screenshots of electronic messages from the Member to […] that are part of a series of messages that include reference to the Complainant’s complaint to BACP, ie after the ending of the therapeutic relationship, that read:

‘My life is in tatters because of this complaint and the […] s’

[…]

The decision of the Panel is that the above screenshots are clear evidence of the Member informing […] after the end of the therapeutic relationship of […] relating to her.

Allegation 2.1 (d) On one or more occasions when […] was her client and/or after […] had ceased to be her client, the former Member:

(d) provided […] with dinner.

Found not proved

The Panel has set out under Allegation 1.1 (c) above all of the evidence available to it about the Member providing […] with dinner. In light of the other screenshots surrounding those relating to dinner, the Panel is satisfied that those referring to dinner were sent by […] during the therapeutic relationship. In these circumstances, Allegation 2.1 (d) duplicates 1.1 (c).

Allegation 3.1 (a) The former Member communicated information to […] that:
(a) was inappropriately sent by electronic means

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this allegation and the next two allegations is a screenshot of an electronic message from the Member to […] that reads:

‘Thank you for your payment today. And I meant what I said if […]. It’s a load of rubbish. Women love good hygiene nice smells good teeth and hair plus intelligence kindness and most importantly the ability to communicate!’

The Panel considered that information sent by the Member to […] by electronic means that was part of a therapeutically themed message would have been appropriate.

The decision of the Panel, however, is that by including the words […] in the above message the Member went beyond informing […] that, in her opinion, the importance for women of the […] is not key and used words that may be appropriate in some contexts but that, in a brief message, have potential shock value but lack therapeutic value.

Allegation 3.1 (b) The former Member communicated information to […] that:

(b) was inappropriately sent at 22.19

Found not proved

The electronic message considered in Allegation 3.1 (a) above was sent at 22.19. The decision of the Panel is that the key concerns about this message are captured in Allegations 3.1 (a) and 3.1 (c) and that Allegation 3.1 (b) provides no addition concerns.

Allegation 3.1 (c) The former Member communicated information to […] that:

(c) contained information of a sexual nature.

Found proved

The decision of the Panel is that the screenshot in issue contains reference to […] therefore contains information of a sexual nature.

Allegation 4.1 (a) After becoming aware that the Complainant had made a complaint to BACP about her conduct, the former Member communicated with and attempted to further communicate with […] about:

(a) the complaint in a manner and/or with content and/or with a frequency that went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

Found proved

BACP’s evidence in support of this and the next two allegations is a series of screenshots of electronic messages the contents of which satisfy the Panel that they were sent after the Member became aware that the Complainant had made her complaint to BACP.

The Panel identifies the following message in support of that part of the allegation that the Member communicated with […] about the complaint:

‘I have now received formal notification of your complaint. It is being sent for formal
investigation. Please can we talk regarding consensual resolution? This involves us talking before proceedings can go any further to seek a resolution to the complaint. I am available most days anytime on this number.’

The Panel identifies the following message in support of that part of the allegation that the Member attempted to further communicate with […] about the complaint:

‘Can you and […] meet me today please? I need to get this complaint resolved.’

‘I’m going to email you all the correspondence now Please send me your email address asap So I can forward all the paperwork’

‘Please call me back I’m distraught […] we need to resolve this asap’

In addition, the Panel has before it a record of a number of calls made by the Member to […] that […] did not answer.

The Panel is satisfied from the above specifically and from the totality of the electronic messages it has seen that were sent by the Member to […] and from the record of missed calls, that the Member both communicated with and attempted to communicate with […] about the complaint.

The Panel is further satisfied that, considering the totality of the Member’s communication with and attempts to communicate with […] , these went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

Allegation 4.1 (b) After becoming aware that the Complainant had made a complaint to BACP about her conduct, the former Member communicated with and attempted to further communicate with […] about:

(b) her feelings about the complaint in a manner and/or with content and/or with a frequency that went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

Found proved

The Panel has identified the following in support of that part of the allegation that the Member communicated to […] her feelings about the complaint.

‘We will sort out this […] together.’

The decision of the Panel is that by her use of the above words the Member went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

The Panel is satisfied from the totality of the electronic messages it has seen that were sent by the Member to […] and from the record of missed calls, that the Member attempted to further communicate with […] about her feelings about the complaint and that this went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

Allegation 4.1 (c) After becoming aware that the Complainant had made a complaint to BACP about her conduct, the former Member communicated with and attempted to further communicate with […] about:

(c) her feelings about the Complainant in a manner and/or with content and/or with a frequency that went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

Found proved in part

The Panel has identified the following in support of that part of the allegation that the Member communicated to […] her feelings about the Complainant:

‘Her not giving a […] is typical of a […]

The decision of the Panel is that by her use of the above words the Member went beyond what was acceptable of her as a professional to attempt to compromise a complaint.

The Panel does not find evidence to support that part of the allegation that the Member attempted to further communicate with […] about her feelings about the Complainant.

The Panel’s approach to alleged breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018

18. In reaching its decisions on whether, on the facts that it has found proved, there have been breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018, the Panel exercised its own professional judgment.

Decisions on alleged breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018

19. The Panel made the following decisions on breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018

Allegation 1.2

Found proved for Allegations 1.1 (b) and 1.1 (c)

The Panel is satisfied that by her conduct as a therapist/counsellor whilst in a therapeutic relationship with […] :

(a) in permitting […] to look at/attend to her smoke alarm, and separately by
(b) providing […] with dinner on at least one occasion the Member breached a professional boundary by stepping outside of the therapeutic relationship and that her conduct in each instance was not consistent with the aims of working with […] and was not beneficial to […] . The Panel is further satisfied that by her conduct in each instance the Member had created a dual relationship with […] .

The Panel is satisfied that paragraphs 33 a and 33 b have been breached by the conduct found in Allegations 1.1 (b) and 1.1 (c)

Allegation 2.2

Found not proved for paragraphs 33 a and 33 b

The Panel is satisfied that the conduct found in Allegations 2.1 (a), (b) and (c) occurred after the therapeutic relationship between the Member and […] had ended so that paragraphs 33 a and 33 b of the Ethical Framework do not apply as they only apply to an existing therapeutic relationship.

Found proved for paragraph 37 a

The Panel is satisfied the conduct of the Member in:

(a) providing information to […] about a […] visit of hers
(b) meeting […] in a cafe
(c) informing […] about […] relating to her

can properly be described as conduct that would be undertaken by someone in a personal relationship with another person and not by a therapist/counsellor who had been in a therapeutic relationship with a client until as recently as July Year 2.

The Panel is further satisfied that by entering into a personal relationship with […] that included the conduct as found in Allegations 2.1 (a), 2.1 (b) and 2.1 (c) the Member had failed to exercise caution before doing so.

The Panel is satisfied that paragraphs 37 a has been breached by the conduct found in Allegations 2.1 (a), 2.1 (b) and 2.1 (c).

Allegation 3.2

Found not proved in relation to paragraph 33 a

The decision of the Panel is that, in the absence of the context in which the electronic message was sent, it cannot assess whether paragraph 33 a had been breached.

Found proved in relation to paragraph 48

The decision of the Panel is that in conveying her opinion to […] the Member was not required to use the sexually explicit words […] and that by doing so she brought the profession into disrepute.

The Panel is satisfied that paragraph 48 has been breached by the conduct found in Allegations 3.1 (a) and 3.1 (c).

Allegation 4.2

Found not proved in relation to paragraph 37 c

The decision of the Panel is that at the time the Member sent the electronic messages about the Complainant’s complaint, she was not in a therapeutic relationship with […] so that paragraph 37 c does not apply.

Found proved in relation to paragraph 48

The Panel finds that by her conduct found in Allegations 4.1 (a), 4.1 (b) and 4.1 (c) in part the Member behaved in a way that was not consistent with the conduct expected of a member of BACP and has brought the profession into disrepute.

The Panel’s approach to Professional Misconduct

20. The Panel reminded itself that the PCP defines professional misconduct as:

‘a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.’

21. The Panel reminded itself that the professional standards expected are set out in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

The Panel also had regard to the case law, particularly Roylance v GMC [2000] AC 311 in which misconduct was described as:

‘a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances.’

Findings and reasons on Professional Misconduct

22. The Panel made the following findings in relation to professional misconduct.

Allegation 3.1

The decision of the Panel is that the Member’s conduct as found in Allegations 3.1 (a) and (c) fell below the standard expected of her as a member of BACP and had breached paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework 2018 but that her conduct was not sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct.

Allegation 4.1

The decision of the Panel is that the Member’s conduct as found in Allegations 4.1 (a), 4.1 (b) and 4.1 (c) in part fell significantly below the standard expected of her as a member of BACP and breached paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework 2018 and was sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct.

Decision

23. The Panel found that the Member has failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that she has acted contrary to paragraphs 33 a, 33 b, 37 a and 48 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

24. The Panel also found Professional Misconduct in relation to Allegations 4.1 (a), 4.1 (b) and 4.1 (c) in part.

[…]

25.[…]

[…]

26. […]

[…]

27.[…]

Sanction

28. Having determined that the Member has failed to comply with paragraphs 33 a, 33 b, 37 a and 48 of the BACP Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, and having found Professional Misconduct in relation to Allegation 4.1, the Panel has reconvened 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.

The Evidence

29. The Panel has taken into account evidence received during the earlier stages of the hearing where relevant to reaching a decision on sanction. It noted that the Member was invited to make submissions on sanction but has not done so. It bore in mind also that the Member is not a current BACP member.

Previous sanctions

30. The Panel noted that there were no previous sanctions to take into account.

The Panel's Approach to Sanction

33. The decision as to the appropriate sanction to impose, if any, is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgement. In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken account of Protocol 14 of the PCP and the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

34. 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.

35. Protocol 14 of the PCP states that when setting sanctions, the Panel must ensure the sanction is fair and proportionate to the allegations found proved or admitted. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel must have regard to the overarching objective of protecting the public and safeguarding the public interest.

36. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect members of the public and the wider public interest, although it may have a punitive effect.

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

Aggravating and Mitigating factors

38. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• The Member has had no previous findings made against her.
• She experienced some difficult personal circumstances during the period of the complaint.

39. The Panel then noted the aggravating factors of this case which include:

• The wide range of professional failures found proved.
• The length of time over which the breaches occurred.
• The Member has demonstrated no insight or remorse into her failings.

Findings and reasons on Sanction

• No order

40. The Panel first considered whether to make no order and concluded that this would not protect the public or adequately reflect the seriousness of the allegations found proved in this case.

• Written apology

41. The Panel then considered whether a written apology would be an appropriate sanction and concluded that given the inappropriate nature of the Member’s previous correspondence at the time of the therapeutic relationship and the subsequent complaint, an apology would not be appropriate. It considered also this would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct.

• Requirement to demonstrate change or improvement

42. The Panel next considered whether a requirement to demonstrate change or improvement would be an appropriate sanction and concluded that in view of the Member’s lack of insight or remorse, and her lack of engagement in the investigation, a requirement to demonstrate change would not address the misconduct found proved. It bore in mind also that the Member is not currently practising as a member of BACP.

• Requirement to undertake training

43. The Panel next considered whether a requirement to undertake training was an appropriate sanction and concluded that the serious and wide-ranging breaches of professional standards identified could not be adequately addressed by retraining. It considered therefore that this would not effectively protect the public.

• Suspension of membership

44. The Panel next considered whether suspension of membership would be an appropriate sanction. It concluded that a suspension of membership would not adequately reflect the seriousness or the wide-ranging nature of the matters found proved. The Panel did not consider that a temporary removal from practice would adequately protect the public.

• Withdrawal of membership

45. The Panel next considered withdrawal of membership and concluded that in view of the findings of professional misconduct, the correspondence of a sexual nature, the Member’s efforts to interfere in the complaints process, and her lack of insight or remorse, withdrawal of membership was the only sanction which would adequately protect the public and maintain public confidence in the counselling profession. It concluded therefore that withdrawal of membership was the fair and proportionate sanction in the public interest.

Decision on sanction

46. The Panel therefore determined that, had the Member still been in BACP membership, it would have withdrawn her membership.

[…]

47. […]

48. […]

49. […]

[…]

50. […]

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