Professional Conduct notice / Uni of C

March 2025: University of Chester, Reference No 00100108

Outcome Details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Reasons

The University of Chester, a BACP University of Chester, agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into a complaint of professional misconduct under reference PCP[…].

1. Background

1.1 The University of Chester has been a BACP member since […].

1.2. In August Year 1 the complainant, […], made a complaint to BACP about the University of Chester regarding their professional conduct. The Complainant stated as follows:

o The Course Leader […] treated the Complainant and other students in an unethical, unprofessional and unsafe way

o During a contracting session on the course, where a student is required to create a contract between staff and students, the Complainant was
made to disclose his disability to the group. Other students were made to disclosure their medical issues to the group. The Complainant raised his unhappiness about being required to do this

o The contract was prescriptive and against common sense, and when concerns were raised, the lecturer was dismissive and responded abruptly to the Complainant’s challenge, damaging his confidence. Other students told the Complainant he was treated unfairly. When this was raised with […], they failed to act as course leader

o The contract initially had a ‘conflict resolution plan’, agreed by all, whereby if there was a breach the person involved would be spoken with first. If at that point it was felt that sharing the issue with the whole group would be beneficial, then those involved could decide to do so. This was a protection to all parties, safeguarding the vulnerable. The lecturer subsequently questioned this and removed the safeguard completely. This resulted in all breaches being discussed in the group, notwithstanding the views of the person who was alleged to be breached. This felt unethical and not person-centred. The Complainant raised his concern to the lecturer in front of the whole group, and he was abruptly chastised, being told ‘if you didn’t agree then you need to consider your role within the group’. The group were allowed to criticise the Complainant during his challenge. Several students messaged the Complainant to voice their disproval and worry for the
way he was treated. This was also raised with […] who failed to act as course leader taking the concern seriously and without caring for the students’ wellbeing. Instead, […] asked the Complainant to speak directly to the lecturer causing the concern, failing in their duty of care and support inclusion. There was no support, no understanding and no empathy. The Complainant feels […] held no accountability for their staff and the course teaching culture, which lacked an ethical and person-centred approached

o […] failed to check the Complainant’s contract, despite being aware the Complainant was off during the final contracting week and after the Complainant was pushed for time to complete it. […] was unable to accommodate an individual and this action resulted in the Complainant’s suspension

o During another session, the Complainant was berated by a lecturer in front of the group that he breached the contract due to his signal being down. Other students had been in the same position, but nothing was
said to them. This prompted students to express their concern that the Complainant was being treated unfairly and bullied by the lecturer

o During another session, a lecturer gave direct and demoralising feedback, looked unhappy and refused the Complainant to explore the feedback, when they had allowed a previous student to do so. The continued culture lead by […] to single out the Complainant was clear

o The majority of students and staff were involved in breaches but only the Complainant was addressed directly or put under investigation. This was an abuse of power and the Complainant being treated differently, with inconsistent policing

o There were a number of contractual abnormalities,[…] and their lecturers never challenged or followed contract guidelines, leading to a culture of bullying. Contracts were not reviewed as specified in the contract. […] and their team themselves were unwilling to follow or unaware of their own contract requirements. Silence was relied upon to acknowledge agreement to a formally binding contract

o […]was unable to support the Complainant’s disability. His inclusion plan suggests he can record seminars and have access to slides days in advance. Consistently the slides and resources used on the day did not match the slides available prior to the lecture. Slides were usually uploaded on the day, evening before, or not at all.[…] was unwilling to allow the sessions to be recorded. Sometimes lectures would go too quick and lecturers were flippant when the Complainant asked for help. This would negatively affect the Complainant and he raised the issue several times to all lecturers, […] and the disability lead. Nothing changed and he was failed by the course. The Complainant considers this to show institutionalised disability discrimination, and he failed his first assignment with no redress or dispensation

o […] discussed the Complainant’s alleged breach with students who had not signed up to the same contract. Students did not have the full picture thus were unable to reach a reasonable judgment when asked to vote on his attendance. It suggests bias. This was in breach of confidentiality and against his wishes/without his consent. This led to the Complainant not attending a residential weekend as he did not feel safe, and the Complainant was removed from peer WhatsApp groups within 12 hours. This was professional bullying by both students and […] by complicity.
o The Complainant takes issue with the quality of the teaching on the course. Failure of support impacted the outcome. This impacted a number of students in the Complainant’s cohort and previous years.

o The Complainant complains there was no fairness and openness in the proctor process. He was given no detail about how he could be supported, which alienated him and isolated him further. At no point did […] make it clear that a failure to agree a contract would result in suspension. Had he known this, it may have resulted differently

o The Complainant complains that there was a delay in the internal investigation which meant he could not re-join his cohort that year

2. Allegations

The following allegations were put forward by the IAC on […].

1.1. In failing to ensure that its staff adhered to its own stated or agreed procedures, including its procedures for termly reviews, the Member failed to provide appropriate opportunities for students to raise and/ or address any concerns.

1.2. The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

80. Trainers and educators will encourage trainees to raise any concerns at the earliest opportunity and have processes and policies for addressing any trainee’s concerns. Trainers and educators are responsible for providing opportunities for trainees to discuss any of their practice-related difficulties without blame or unjustified criticism and, when appropriate, to support trainees in taking positive actions to resolve difficulties.

2.1. The Member treated the Complainant differently to other students in that:
a) He was criticised for breaching the contract on several occasions when breaches by other students and staff were not addressed
b) He was chastised publicly by a lecturer when he raised a query about the contract
c) He was denied the opportunity to explore negative feedback when this opportunity was made available to another student.
d) His concerns were not addressed promptly and /or appropriately by his course tutor and his safety was not protected

2.2 The treatment of the Complainant amounted to bullying and/ or vindictiveness. In failing to ensure that there were measures in place to ensure all students were treated equally and that concerns were addressed promptly, the Member failed to model high levels of good practice in its work and failed to ensure there were appropriate measures in place for to allow concerns to be addressed.

2.3 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

79. Trainers and educators will model high levels of good practice in their work, particularly with regard to expected levels of competence and professionalism, relationship building, the management of personal boundaries, any dual relationships, conflicts of interest and avoiding exploitation.

3.1 The Member failed to put in place appropriate measures to support the Complainant with his disability and thereby disadvantaged the Complainant’s full participation in the course.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

3. Admissions

The University of Chester makes the following admissions which the BACP accepts:

a. The University of Chester admits that it failed to ensure that its staff adhered to its own stated or agreed procedures, including its procedures for termly reviews, and thus failed to provide appropriate opportunities for students to raise and/or address any concerns. This constitutes a failure to
meet BACP professional standards and in particular paragraph 80 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

b. The University of Chester admits that the treatment of the Complainant was different to other students and amounted to bullying and/or vindictiveness. It failed to ensure that there were measures in place to ensure all students were treated equally and that concerns were addressed promptly. The University of Chester admits that it failed to model high levels of good practice in its work and failed to ensure there were appropriate measures in place to allow concerns to be addressed. These failings constitute a failure to meet BACP professional standards and in particular paragraphs 79 and 80 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
c. The University of Chester was unable to put in place all recommended measures to support the Complainant with their disability and thereby disadvantaged the Complainant’s full participation in the course. This constitutes a failure to meet BACP professional standards and in particular paragraph 79 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

4. Mitigation

The University of Chester puts forward the following in mitigation, which has been taken into account by the IAC in deciding the appropriate outcome:

4.1. The allegations also formed part of an internal complaint submitted by the Complainant to the University of Chester, which was dealt with under the University of Chester’s own procedures. Upon completion of those procedures, the Complainant escalated the complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). The University of Chester and the Complainant have reached a mutual settlement of that complaint to the satisfaction of the OIA.

4.2. The University of Chester has issued an unreserved apology to the Complainant expressing its regret that the Complainant experienced bullying behaviour by a member of its staff and acknowledging the distress that that would have caused them. The University of Chester has also apologised unreservedly for the delay in handling the internal complaint and has reviewed its procedures for dealing with complex cases which encompass multiple policies.

4.3. The University of Chester took appropriate disciplinary action against a member of its staff following the conclusion of its internal procedures.

4.4. The University of Chester takes its disability and inclusion obligations to students very seriously. The University of Chester is sympathetic to the Complainant’s individual needs, however it must also balance the confidentiality obligations it owes to other students in sensitive group discussions. The University of Chester offered additional individual support to the Complainant as an alternative to the recording of lectures.

4.5. The University of Chester has rigorous internal and external quality and standards monitoring processes to maintain high quality teaching and learning and identify issues when they occur. Following the Complainant’s complaint, real and tangible measures were implemented to address the issues raised.

4.6. During settlement discussions pertaining to the OIA complaint, the Complainant expressed their view that they would consider re-embarking upon another course at the University of Chester. The University of Chester recognises and is humbled by the significance of the Complainant’s willingness to re-apply and refers to it here in mitigation as an indication of the ongoing goodwill between the Complainant and the University of Chester and their confidence that the University of Chester has made positive changes in light of the issues raised.

5. Conclusion

5.1. The issues identified and admitted by Member amounted to breaches of the Ethical Framework in particular paragraphs 79 and 80

o 79. Trainers and educators will model high levels of good practice in their work, particularly with regard to expected levels of competence and professionalism, relationship building, the management of personal boundaries, any dual relationships, conflicts of interest and avoiding exploitation.

o 80. Trainers and educators will encourage trainees to raise any concerns at the earliest opportunity and have processes and policies for addressing any trainee’s concerns. Trainers and educators are responsible for providing opportunities for trainees to discuss any of their practice-related difficulties without blame or unjustified criticism and, when appropriate, to support trainees in taking positive actions to resolve difficulties.

5.2. One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The IAC, in considering what sanction may be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, has taken into account the interests of public protection.

5.3. In relation to the finding above the IAC considers it appropriate that University of Chester should within 3 months of the date of this decision provide to the BACP

a) a reflective piece setting out what the Member has learned from the complaints raised in this case and what changes it has made to its practices and procedures to avoid a repetition of such complaints in the future.

b) a genuine and sincere apology addressing the issues raised in the allegations and their impact.

5.4 The University of Chester agrees that this Agreement may be published by the BACP and that it will be disclosed to the complainant.

5.5 The University of Chester agrees that it will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the finding in paragraph 2 above.

5.6. If the University of Chester acts in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement their membership will be terminated. Such a decision will be published.

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