March 2025: JH, Reference No 00737652 , Registrant ID 62797
March 2025: Jonathan Hoban, Reference No 00737652 , Registrant ID 62797
Allegations
In accepting this complaint, the Committee was concerned that the allegations made in the complaint suggest a failure to comply with the Professional Standards as follows:
Allegation 1
1.1 During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member:
(a) Cancelled and/or rearranged therapy appointments and/or walking therapy training:
(i) Repeatedly; and/or
(ii) With short notice; and/or
(b) Did not turn up to one or more arranged sessions; and/or
(c) Provided alternative and/or inconsistent reasons for why he had been unable to fulfil arranged therapy sessions and/or walking therapy training; and/or
(d) Did not provide any and/or prompt refunds when unable to fulfil agreements to provide arranged therapy sessions and/or walking therapy training; and/or
(e) Provided inconsistent reasons for his failure to provide a refund; and/or
(f) Met clients and presented appearing disinterested; and/or
(g) Sent communications to clients that were:
(i) rude and/or
(ii) unemphatic (amended to unempathetic) and/or
(iii) unprofessional and/or
(iv) in breach of client confidentiality if they were sent by a person other than himself.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Associations Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
29: Our work with clients will be based on professional partnerships with them that aim to increase their wellbeing, capability and/or performance.
35: We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually.
43: We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.
48: We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
49: We will encourage clients to raise any concerns about our work with them at the earliest possible opportunity, give any concerns careful consideration and, when appropriate, attempt to resolve them. Clients will be informed of any applicable complaints processes open to them including the Professional Conduct Procedures of this Association www.bacp.co.uk/about-us/protecting-the-public/professional-conduct
55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure
b. informing clients about how the use of personal data and information that they share with us will be used and who is within the circle of confidentiality, particularly with access to personally identifiable information
c. requiring that all recipients of personally identifiable information have regard to and treat such information as confidential in accordance with any legal requirements and what has been agreed with the client at the time of disclosure
d. informing clients about any reasonably foreseeable limitations of privacy or confidentiality in advance of our work together, for example, communications to ensure or enhance the quality of work in supervision or training, to protect a client or others from serious harm including safeguarding commitments, and when legally required or authorised to disclose
e. taking care that all contractual requirements concerning the management and communication of client information are mutually compatible
f. ensuring that disclosure of personally identifiable information about clients is authorised by client consent or that there is a legally and ethically recognised justification.
74: All trainers will have the skills, attitudes and knowledge required to be competent teachers and facilitators of learning for what is being provided.
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.
Allegations 1.1 (a) (i) and/or 1.1 (a) (ii) and/or 1.1 (b) and/or 1.1 (c) and/or 1.1 (d), and/or 1.1 (e) and/or 1.1 (f) and/or 1.1 (g) (i) and/or 1.1 (g) (ii) and/or 1.1 (g) (iii) and/or 1.1 (g) (iv) amount to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Allegation 2
2.1 The Member failed to set out clearly the details of the terms of the relationship and/or confirm in writing what he stated was agreed verbally with one or more clients during 2021 and/or 2022, as follows:
(a) original complainant […] and/or
(b) original complainant […] and/or
(c) original complainant […] and/or
(d) original complainant […] and/or
(e) original complainant […] and/or
(f) original complainant […] and/or
(g) original complainant […]
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Associations Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
31: We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to:
a. reaching an agreement or contract that takes account of each client’s expressed needs and choices so far as possible
b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context
c. stating clearly how a client’s confidentiality and privacy will be protected and any circumstances in which confidential or private information will be communicated to others
d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed
e. keeping a record of what has been agreed and of any changes or clarifications when they occur.
Allegation 3
3.1 On one or more occasions the Member held himself out as sufficiently well to work but subsequently failed to fulfil planned sessions of therapy and/or walking therapy citing his poor health.
3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Associations Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
18: We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients – see 91 Care of self as a practitioner.
91: We will take responsibility for our own wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by:
a. taking precautions to protect our own physical safety
b. monitoring and maintaining our own psychological and physical health, particularly that we are sufficiently resilient and resourceful to undertake our work in ways that satisfy professional standards
c. seeking professional support and services as the need arises
d. keeping a healthy balance between our work and other aspects of life
Preliminary Issues
Amendment to Allegation 1.1 (g) (ii)
At the outset of the hearing, […], Case Presenter on behalf of the BACP, notified the Panel that Allegation 1.1 (g) (ii) contained a typographical error in that it referred to the Member’s communications being “unemphatic” when it should read “unempathetic”. In the absence of any objection from the Member, the Panel agreed that the allegation should be amended as it was clear that it was an error and there would be no prejudice to the Member in allowing the amendment.
First Application to admit Hearsay Evidence
[…] made an application to have the following witness statements admitted as ‘hearsay evidence’:
a. Witness statement of […] dated […] 2023 and exhibits
b. Witness statement of […] dated […] 2024 and exhibits
c. Witness statement of […] dated […] 2023 and exhibits
[…] submitted that the application was necessary as Witness […] had indicated that she was not willing to attend the hearing because of the time commitment and the triggering effect that giving evidence will have. Witnesses […] and […] are currently abroad in […] and […] respectively. BACP took reasonable steps to attempt to secure their attendance including requesting that the FCDO contact the two relevant countries to make enquiries about the witnesses giving evidence from those countries and no permission was granted by […] and […] for them to give oral evidence virtually.
She stated that Paragraph 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure provides:
"a. The rules of evidence will not apply to proceedings under this Procedure.
b. The Panel may admit oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not
such evidence would be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings, subject to
any relevant statutory requirements and the requirements of relevance and
fairness.”
[…] submitted that the Panel should apply the tests set out in Thorneycroft v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin). In particular she submitted that:
• None of the witnesses’ evidence is sole or decisive in support of the charges;
• It is not anticipated that their evidence will be contested;
• There is no suggestion that any witness has reasons to fabricate their evidence;
• Witness evidence is largely supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and emails;
• There are clear and understandable reasons for their non-attendance;
• BACP has taken reasonable steps to attempt to secure witnesses’ attendance;
• The Registrant has had notice of this application in advance of the hearing;
• In the circumstances of this case, and balancing fairness to both parties (which in the case of BACP includes consideration of its purpose of protection of the public and the wider public interest), BACP submits that admitting the hearsay evidence of […], […] and […] is fair, relevant and desirable.
The Member told the Panel that he did not oppose the application and that it was ‘absolutely fine’.
The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk. He referred the Panel to cases including R ( Bonhoeffer) v GMC [2011] EWHC Admin 1585, Thorneycroft and Suddock v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin) and to Section 4.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure. He advised the Panel to consider each application separately and follow the approach as set out in Thorneycroft and that it must consider fairness to both the BACP and the Member and the public interest.
Decision on the Hearsay Application
The Panel considered each application separately. It took into account the submissions of […], the Member’s position that he did not challenge the application and adopted the approach as set out in Thorneycroft.
The Panel noted that the witnesses’ statements are signed by each witness and include a statement of truth.
The Panel noted that in addition to each witness statement there are copies of communications between the witnesses and the Member relating to the allegations. The Panel therefore determined that the witness statements were not the sole and decisive evidence in support of the allegations.
The Panel also took into account that the Member did not challenge the application to have the witness statements admitted as hearsay evidence and did not indicate that he sought to challenge their evidence.
The Panel also noted that the Member was present and able to give his account during the hearing and the Panel would therefore be able to apply appropriate weight to the evidence of the absent witnesses.
The Panel was satisfied the evidence of each witness was relevant to some of the matters before it.
The Panel accepted that there was nothing before the Panel to indicate that that any witness had reasons to fabricate their evidence.
The Panel noted that there were valid reasons why each witness was unable to attend the hearing and that the BACP had taken reasonable steps to try and secure their attendance.
The Panel noted that the Member had been given prior notice of the application and had stated the application was ‘absolutely fine.’
The Panel carefully weighed up the interests of the BACP, the interests of the Member and the public interest. It determined that, on the basis of its conclusions set out above, that it was fair and in the public interest to admit the witness statements of […], […] and […] as hearsay evidence and granted […] application.
Member’s Subsequent Submissions
After the Panel had advised parties of its decision and […] had made her opening statement, the Member stated that that when he was previously asked for his position, he had not fully understood the issues, particularly that he would not have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
[…] indicated that the BACP agreed that the Panel could hear further representations from the Member on the issue. The Panel considered this would be fair and adjourned the hearing to allow the Member time to prepare submissions.
On the second day of the hearing the Member provided the Panel with written submissions, stating in summary that:
He had not opposed the application out of politeness but had not understood the issues on hearsay or what it was that he had agreed to, nor was he given time to take legal advice. He now wished to raise the following issues:
‘1) Whether evidence should have been submitted to this panel before the application to assess whether it was lawful to submit it, or whether the hearsay application should have been made separately in front of different adjudicators;
2) Whether it is fair that it was only notified to him two days before the hearing so he was unable to get legal advice, when the BACP have known for months that three of the witnesses were not going to be able to attend.
3) Whether it is fair that the evidence of a fourth witness, who is now unable to attend, should be admitted when there was no prior notice of the application.
4) Whether not wanting to miss work, make time to attend or revisit something unpleasant are fair reasons to deny him the ability to cross examine complainants when his career and livelihood are at stake;
5) Why obtaining and submitting written evidence from abroad does not contravene FCDO rules and damage this country’s diplomatic relationship with […] and […], when neither has given permission for this.
6) Why four out of seven witnesses’ failure to attend is not considered ‘decisive evidence’.
7) There is an important concern that needs to be cross examined on, about to what extent complainants were directed to a scam website to liaise with each other and amplify concerns and encourage the complaints.’
Response of […], on behalf of BACP
[…] submitted that the Member had been notified about the application five days before the hearing and had not indicated that he wished to seek legal advice. This remained his position on the first day of the hearing. […] further submitted that no separate application for the admission of hearsay evidence was required as in criminal cases and that the Panel, as a professional panel, could disregard the contents of any documents if they were not admitted.
[…] submitted that there were good reasons for the non-attendance of the other witnesses and reiterated her position that none of these witnesses’ evidence was ‘sole or decisive’ in relation to the allegations.
In relation to the Member’s arguments that he was being denied the ability to cross examine these witnesses, […] submitted that it was unclear whether he challenged their factual evidence as the documents submitted by the Member suggested that he largely agreed with the contents of the witness statements. In relation to the Member’s assertions about a ‘scam website’, […] commented that no evidence had been provided of such a website.
In conclusion […] submitted that the witness statements should be admitted.
The Panel accepted the further advice of the Clerk. He again referred the Panel to the case law as above. He advised the Panel to follow the approach as set out in Thorneycroft and reminded it that it must consider fairness to both the BACP and the Member and the public interest.
Panel’s Further Consideration of the Hearsay Application
In reaching its decision the Panel considered the written and oral submissions of the Member and […], the terms of its prior decision and all relevant documentation.
The Panel was satisfied that there was no requirement for the issue of the admission of hearsay evidence to be heard by a separate Panel.
The Panel determined that the Member did not seek to challenge the factual position set out in the witness statements of […], […] and […]. It noted that he had referred to the ‘demeanour’ of the witnesses when cross examined and that he wanted to explore ‘the dimensional perspective’ with them. The Member provided no explanation of how this would be of assistance to him or the Panel.
The Panel took into account the guidance in the case of Bonhoeffer, that whilst there was no absolute entitlement to cross examination, the more serious the allegation the more cautious a Panel should be to ensure the hearing process was fair. The Panel having concluded above that the Member was not seeking to challenge the contents of the three witness statements, determined that the Member would not suffer unfairness by being unable to cross examine these witnesses.
The Panel was satisfied that the Member had been given sufficient notice of the application and had not suggested that he required time to obtain legal advice on the application.
The Panel therefore confirmed its decision to admit this evidence.
Member’s Application for Submission of Late Evidence
The Member made an application to have various documents admitted as late evidence. He took the Panel through each document and explained why he wished them to be admitted and why they had not been produced before. […] had no submissions to make in relation to the application
The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk.
The Panel carefully considered the Member’s application and reviewed the documentation. Having done so the Panel determined that some of the documentation was already produced within the BACP’s bundle and the Member’s bundle. The documents that had not already been produced were not, in the Panel’s view, relevant to the factual issues before it.
The Panel therefore refused the Member’s application.
BACP Second Hearsay Application
[…] made an application to have the witness statement of […] admitted as hearsay evidence. […] stated that […] was due to give evidence on the first day of the hearing but had sent an email at 13:22 stating that he was unable to attend that afternoon. Attempts were made to reschedule his attendance but he declined, stating that he was too busy. […] submitted that applying the tests outlined in Thorneycroft as outlined above, admitting the hearsay evidence of […] was fair, relevant and desirable.
The Member opposed the application on the same basis as his opposition to […] first hearsay application.
The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk.
The Panel considered that […] evidence was not the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. It also noted that the Member did not seem to be contesting the facts spoken to by […]. The Panel further determined that it had no reason to consider that […] had reason to fabricate his evidence and that the evidence was supported by contemporaneous documents. The Panel also determined that the BACP had taken reasonable steps to secure his attendance and that there were good reasons for his non-attendance.
The Panel therefore granted the application and admitted […] witness statement.
Evidence
The Panel heard live evidence from Witnesses, […], […] and […].
Witness – […]
[…] adopted her witness statement. She told the Panel that she contacted the Member as she was looking to train as a therapist and wanted professional insight on outdoor therapy. She paid him £100 in advance for a telephone conversation.
[…] said that the Member postponed the call on a number of occasions, stating variously that he was unwell, had been in hospital, and that his […] was unwell. She sent the Member a message on […] 2021 saying she was making a complaint to the BACP unless he refunded her. She then received a reply from […] the Member’s PA who told her that the Member was in hospital and she could not issue a refund. […] said […] offered to re-book but she declined as she had no interest in re-booking after the multiple postponements and excuses. She then reported the matter to the BACP.
At the start of cross examination, the Member apologised to […]. When suggested by the Member that his behaviour could be consistent with ill health […] accepted this. She confirmed she had now received a letter of apology and the offer of a refund.
Witness – […]
[…] told the Panel that he contacted the Member to enquire about a qualification in walking therapy and paid £350 on […] 2021.
The training was initially arranged for […] 2021, but was postponed on a number of occasions, at short notice, due to bad weather, the Member saying he was unwell and that he was in hospital with Covid. The Member told him he could not provide the training under the Covid regulations. […] told the Panel that he considered that outdoor training was allowed under these regulations. He told the Member that he no longer wished to do the walking therapy training and asked for a refund. The Member did not respond to this email so he sent further emails on […] 2021, […] and […] 2022 again without reply, and a text on […] 2022 in case the Member had not received the emails, but received no reply.
[…] said that at this point he decided to report the matter to the BACP and make a claim in the small claims court.
Witness – […]
[…] told the Panel that contacted the Member on […] 2021 to arrange walking therapy there before he moved to work in […]. They discussed locations in […] for the training. […] made two payments of £200 each. The training was arranged but was postponed at short notice as the Member said he was unwell. […] said he had already travelled to […] when he received the email but felt being unwell was unavoidable.
Agreed dates for training were subsequently postponed as the Member advised that he had Covid and his […] was unwell. The Member then said that due to changing weather, the training take place in […]. On the agreed date, the Member once again cancelled at short notice and offered to do the training online or provide a refund. […] requested a refund.
[…] referred the Panel to correspondence between himself and the Member regarding the refund between […] 2021 and […] 2022. He confirmed that he had not received a refund. […] also told the Panel he had unsuccessfully attempted to get his money back through the small claims court.
[…] said that initially he did not want to report the Member to BACP as he felt his behaviour was that of someone who was traumatised. […] also said that he thought the Member was manipulative and was scared he would target him.
During cross examination […] accepted that the Member had given him sufficient notice of the cancellation of the first two sessions but by the third cancellation considered that the Member was not trying enough to provide the training. He also accepted that the training set down for […] 2021 was the only session cancelled and that the rest had been postponed.
[…] said that the BACP had informed him that other complaints had been made against the Member. When asked about why he had been scared after the Member’s messages, […] explained that the language used by the Member in his messages had resulted in him becoming frightened.
At the completion of cross examination, the Member apologised to […]
Member’s Evidence
The Member told the Panel that he had tried to refund the money paid to him but had been unable to do so. The Member told the Panel that during the period that the allegations related to, he had been suffering from a medical condition. He referred the Panel to the various Fitness to Work Certificates dated […] 2022 – […] 2023.
The Member explained to the Panel that he had been very unwell with Covid which had developed into ‘long Covid’; this went back to 2019/20. As a result of ill health he was unable to work and had lost money.
The Member explained that he had gone through a […] in 2019 and this had financially adversely affected him. He had to move into the […] to look after his […]. His […] had […] the year before and he had suffered another close bereavement. He began to struggle and was not able to deal with commitments. He was suffering from chronic fatigue and at times collapsed.
The Member said his […] suffered from severe allergies and that […] ‘came first’, which was why he had cancelled the training with […].
The Member told the Panel that the cancellations were necessary to protect his mental health. He said he could not refute the allegations. The Member stated that when he was made subject to an interim suspension order, this made him realise he was unwell and he had taken action.
The Member told the Panel that his health was now good, he was working as a counsellor and he referred the Panel to the report from his supervisor and the testimonials provided.
In relation to the allegations involving […], the Member told the Panel that he ‘found her very difficult’. He explained that he had done the first part of the training on […] 2021, but that he had then collapsed and had to go to hospital. The Member said he had ‘to protect his own health’. He had offered to do on-line training or to do the training at another time, but […] declined. The Member stated that […] was not entitled to a refund.
In relation to […], the Member explained that […] was his ‘cleaning lady’ who had formerly been a PA. She had responded due to the high volume of emails the Member was receiving. He said that she maintained client confidentiality. He explained that at the time of the allegations he made a verbal contract with the clients and if the client then wanted a written contract, he could provide one. He said that BACP guidance did not require a written contract.
In relation to […], the Member told the Panel that he had agreed a course of six sessions with […]. He said his policy was now to proceed session by session. The Member said that the sessions had gone well until he received a call from […] at which point […] decided not to continue with the sessions. The Member said he suspected that something ‘was going on’ with […]. The Member told the Panel that the monetary arrangement with clients also constituted a therapeutic boundary.
In relation to […], the Member stated that he did make a contract with […]. He had reflected on the emails and that he had decided to make a refund to […]. He explained that at the time he did not have the funds to give […] a refund.
The Member told the Panel that he had been assessed for incapacity allowance and referred the Panel to the Debt and Mental Health Evidence Form completed by his GP on […] 2023. The Member said he had been […] home in the […] and moved back to […]. He had tried to refund clients, but his company had been dissolved in 2021 and that any debt died with it, although he accepted that ethically he should repay any money due.
The Member also asserted that the BACP had broken the General Data Protection Regulations when it told the complainants about other complaints and that the BACP had directed individuals to the […] website. The Member asserted this website was a scam website and the information on it was lifted from the Counselling Directory. The Member further asserted that there might be a ‘consortium’ of persons rallying together against him.
The Member stated that cancelling sessions was to maintain personal boundaries and protect his health. In relation to telling […] that he could not undertake one to one training due to Covid restrictions, the Member again asserted that he had a right to protect his own health.
The Member denied giving inconsistent reasons for cancelling or postponing sessions. He told the Panel he had been unwell and at times in hospital or his […] had been unwell. He told the Panel he suffered cognitive impairment as a result of Covid. He said he ‘was human’ and had not been prepared for the pandemic. The Member told the Panel that the accusations were in his view close to defamatory. He said that if he had given short notice of postponement or cancellation he had given reasons. He said he had been honest with every client and was willing to provide medical certificates.
The Member disagreed that he had been rude. He acknowledged that he was assertive and unempathetic when stressed and that on reflection he could have managed matters better. He noted that some BACP witnesses had not attended to be cross examined.
In respect of […] involvement, he said that she did not have access to clients’ details or personal history, just emails. The Member also stated that there was no counselling or therapeutic relationship involved in relation to the allegations involving training.
In relation to the allegations involving […], the Member stated there were good reasons for his suggestion that the training take place at […] and that he had provided a verbal contract.
In respect of […], he asserted that there was no therapeutic relationship and therefore it did not fall within BACP’s jurisdiction. He said it purely involved guidance.
The Member referred the Panel to his testimonials and stated he had learned from what had occurred.
When asked how many times he had been admitted to hospital in […] and […] 2021 the Member replied that he could not say as it ‘was all a blur’ and that he was also seeing his GP. He also suggested that sometimes the factual situation was misinterpreted by his PA […]. The Member said he was admitted to hospital after being hit by a bicycle. He said he thought had had stayed overnight but couldn’t be sure. The Member said he thought this might be the RTA referred to in emails by […].
When asked by […] if he had been admitted to hospital for anything else the Member said he could not recall, stressing that time period to which the allegations relate was a ‘blur’ due to ‘cognitive impairment’. He stated there had been ‘lots of admissions over the year’ but he could not pinpoint time as it was ‘hard to recall’.
When asked if he had been admitted to hospital more than once due to Covid, the Member said he found ‘it hard to recall’. He also said he could not recall if he had been admitted following the pandemic during the period 2021 to 2023. He was unable to recall the period of time that he had been in hospital when he was admitted, again stating that he could not recall due to ‘traumas’.
When asked if he had any letters relating to hospital admissions or discharge, the Member said he did not and said that the medical certificates he had provided would explain his health difficulties, however he accepted that these made no reference to hospital admissions. The Member declined to comment on the GP’s certificate regarding ‘emotional stress’. He said that after the RTA and for Covid concerns he was admitted to […] Hospital and when he collapsed on […] 2021 when carrying out the training with […] he was admitted to […] Hospital.
When asked by […] if he had been admitted to hospital for anything other than Covid or the RTA during this period, the Member said yes but these admissions were not relevant. He said that there was another event, but he was not willing to go into it. The Member asserted that this information was protected by GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations).
When […] specifically asked if the Member had issues during the relevant period as a recovering addict, he stated that he had been 15 years clean, had been addicted to […], […] and […] but now attended AA and NA. He said he was now healthy and could not see that his prior addiction issues were relevant to the matters before the Panel.
When asked questions in cross examination about […], the Member stated that she had been his cleaner on the […], he did not know her surname, address, telephone number or email address. The Member said that on the […] everyone knew everyone else and worked on ‘a no surname basis’. The Member told the Panel that […] […] played with his […] and he thought she started working for him in 2020. He said that she had no set hours she ‘just helped out’, there was no contract and she was paid in cash. He could not recall how long after […] had started cleaning for him that she started working as his PA, but thought it was fairly soon and she worked as a PA ‘on and off’. The Member explained that […]’ had a key to his house and had taken his business phone home. She stopped working for him when he left the […] on […] 2023 to move to […] The Member told the Panel he now had a third-party agreement in relation to the provision of administrative help.
The Member confirmed that […] had access to his phone and passwords and responded when he was unable to do so. The Member said that he had asked his clients when making a verbal contract with them if […] could use his phone and they ‘absolutely gave consent’. He clarified that he had told them he had a PA that he would use. He did not accept that clients would send him confidential information by email which could be read by […] other than potentially bank details. When referred to an email from […] to the Member dated […] 2021 which contained confidential details about how […] was feeling, the Member stated that this information was ‘protected under contract’. He said he saw […] as being capable of dealing with such issues. He said he did not agree that it was inappropriate as it was necessary at the time to ensure clients received replies to emails. However, he accepted that his arrangement with […] was ‘not optimal’. When asked if he had told […] what to write – for example suggesting that […] review was defamatory – the Member stated that she had composed this of her own initiative having read messages etc. The Member, when challenged, insisted that […] did exist.
[…] took the Member through messages to various clients on the same date which she suggested contained conflicting explanations for postponing or cancelling sessions or training. The Member stated that he could not recall what messages had been sent during the period or what had occurred due to his mental health.
In relation to the training sessions arranged with […], the Member explained that he had made the training group aware in the morning that he was feeling unwell. He said he had gone into town and collapsed, but that everything was very foggy. He did not recall how he had got to the hospital but vaguely recollected being in an ambulance. He recalled travelling home on the same day. He said that when providing the training in the morning he had been affected by his health and the way […] was behaving, he said it was all very vague but denied being disorientated.
In respect of […] the Member stated that no issue arose until the telephone call from […]. He denied being unprepared for sessions. He stated that during this period he had seen many people who had not complained about the services provided. He said he could not recall if he had carried out therapy sessions by phone. In cross examination the Member contested that […] had been keen to continue with his therapy.
The Member continued to state that he had made a verbal contract with all the complainants. He stated also that he provided […], […] and […] with brochures that contained terms and conditions for them to sign. He said clients could be reluctant to sign written contracts and he had to respect the client’s autonomy. He said all clients were told of the refund policy. He said even though his memory of that time was poor he always did this as ‘it was like muscle memory.’
The Member did not accept that he was unable to fulfil services and stated that any postponements or cancellations were due to his ill health. He said he had actively tried to fulfil the services and at the time felt he could do so. He said his decision making ‘was all over the place’ and that there had been no complaints about him prior to this period or since. The Member denied being unempathetic and stated that he had been ‘assertive’.
The Member said that he was having supervision in […] to […] 2021 but did not have the information relating to this to hand. He then said he could not recall if he possibly was having no supervision. The Member stated that he had been supervised since […] 2023.
In reply to Panel questions the Member provided details of his training and confirmed he always made a verbal contract. He explained that his insurance had run out and he had been unable to find further cover. In relation to administrative help he explained that he now used a third-party company and the use of […] had been to help with the level of the emails at the time. The Member said that he had been in receipt of Personal Independence Payment since around […] 2023 for long Covid and anxiety and depression but had been seeing clients since […] 2023.
BACP Closing Submissions
[…] submitted that the evidence of the live witnesses, the witness statements and exhibits admitted as hearsay, the documentation provided and the evidence of the Member demonstrated that during 2021 and/or 2022, the Member:
• Regularly cancelled and/or cancelled appointments for therapy and training with limited notice.
• Failed to turn up to pre-arranged sessions.
• Provided inconsistent reasons for cancellations.
• Failed to provided refunds to a number of clients for cancelled services.
• Presented to clients appearing disinterested.
• Sent inappropriate communications to clients, either in his own name or in the name of […].
• Failed to contract with clients adequately or at all.
• Took on professional commitments when he was not sufficiently well to fulfil those commitments.
Member’s Closing Submissions
The Member submitted that he had a history of delivering a service and the allegations arose from a period when he was unwell and suffering from trauma. He submitted that he had been ‘burnt out’. The Member said he had tried to deliver the service but been unable to do so as a result of ill health.
The Member referred to the testimonials provided on his behalf and stated that the matters he had declined to answer questions on were not relevant to the matters before the Panel. The Member also reiterated the position he set out in his evidence regarding verbal contracts and his financial difficulties at the relevant time.
He submitted that prior to the time of the allegation there had been no complaints against him and none since […] 2023. He reiterated that he had been ‘clean’ and had no addiction issues for 15 years. He submitted that he was now back to full health and would ensure that no similar incidents occurred again. He submitted that he monitored his health appropriately and had his return to work was carefully planned.
The Member referred to his evidence in relation to Personal Independence Payment and difficulties in getting insurance.
The Member stated that he had a contribution to make to the mental health of clients in the future. He submitted that he had written a book and written articles for the BACP and was developing a model for holistic management of individuals with ADHD.
Panel Decision
The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk.
In reaching its conclusions in relation to all the allegations, the Panel took into account the witness statements and oral evidence of […], […] and […] for the BACP and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. It also took into account the hearsay evidence of the witness statements of […], […], […] and […], together with all relevant documents provided to it. The Panel also took into account the BACP’s Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 and the Professional Conduct Procedure.
The Panel considered each particular of the allegation in turn. In reaching its decision it considered how the relevant witnesses’ evidence fitted with the non-contentious or agreed facts, contemporaneous documents, the inherent probability or improbability of any account of events and any inconsistencies.
The Panel considered that all three live witnesses had given their evidence in a clear and straightforward manner and their replies to questions were considered. The Panel found that the witnesses’ oral evidence remained consistent from their initial complaints through statements and oral evidence. The Panel considered that any inconsistencies were minor and arose from the passage of time since the date of the allegation. The Panel considered the witnesses to be credible and reliable.
In relation to the written signed witness statements of […], […], […] and […] the Panel took into account that this evidence had not been tested by cross examination or questions from the Panel. However, the Panel determined that there was no information before it that undermined the position of the witnesses in their witness statements or any basis for the Panel not accepting the factual contents of these witness statements.
The Panel found the Member’s evidence to be confused and on a number of occasions contradictory. His assertions about his health were not supported by contemporaneous independent medical evidence. The Panel further considered that some of the Member’s evidence – for example in relation to […] – was inherently implausible. The Panel also noted that in relation to questions during cross examination the Member said he could either not recall what had occurred due to ill health and ‘trauma’ or that the matter was not relevant to the issues before the Panel. The Panel determined therefore that at times the Member was an unreliable witness and little weight could be attached to his evidence.
The Panel considered each allegation and limb in turn.
Allegation 1 (a)
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member:
(a) Cancelled and/or rearranged therapy appointments and/or walking therapy training:
(i) Repeatedly; and/or
(ii) With short notice;
In considering this, the Panel took into account the written witness statements and oral evidence of […], […], […], the hearsay witness statements of […], […] and […] and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. The Panel also took into account all relevant documentary evidence.
The Panel noted that allegation 1 (a) specifically referred to ‘therapy appointments and or walking therapy training’. The Panel determined that the BACP was required to prove that each witness relied upon had either had therapy appointments or walking training therapy.
The Panel considered if […] fell within this definition. The Panel noted the evidence of […] that during her interactions with the Member she was ‘looking to train as a therapist’ and that there was no evidence that she had undertaken walking therapy. The Panel therefore initially considered in relation to […] whether her interaction with the Member constituted a therapy appointment.
The Panel noted that the Professional Conduct Procedure in the ‘Definition’ section states:
‘therapeutic services means:
i. in respect of conduct which occurred on or after 1 July 2018,
“therapeutically informed services” as defined in the BACP Ethical
Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018;’
The Panel further noted that the Ethical Framework states:
‘Therapeutically-informed services are developed from and informed by the theory and practices used in talking and listening therapies, typically coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or using counselling skills. Such theories and practices may be drawn from a wide academic and professional base, including neurology, psychoanalysis, psychology, social sciences and other disciplines.
A client is anyone in receipt of coaching, counselling, pastoral care, psychotherapy or counselling skills from a member or registrant of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. All clients are entitled to receive services that satisfy the commitments stated in this Ethical Framework in ways that are appropriate to the type of service being provided and its setting.’
The Panel took into account that […] had told the Panel that she ‘wanted to speak to a qualified therapist to obtain advice on the routes of training to take. I was looking for professional insight.’ The Panel further took into account that the Member charged […] £100.
The Panel determined therefore that the Member had provided ‘pastoral care … and counselling skills’ as defined in the Ethical Framework and the Professional Conduct Procedure, and that […] was entitled to receive services that were appropriate to the advice that she sought in terms of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel was satisfied that all other complainants fell within this category.
The Panel first considered the allegation in respect of [...]. Whilst […] had not given evidence, the Panel found that there was nothing before it to undermine his written statement or cause it to find his evidence incredible or unreliable. The Panel also noted that the Member did not contest that these postponements took place. The Panel took into account that […] stated that the Member postponed counselling sessions on 6 occasions on […], […], […], […], […] and […] […] 2021.
The Panel also considered the uncontested evidence of […] that all these postponements took place close to the date set for the calls. The Panel determined therefore that, on the balance of probabilities, the Member had postponed the sessions repeatedly and with short notice.
The Panel considered the allegation in respect of […]. […] gave evidence before the Panel that the Member postponed calls with her to discuss her undertaking training on 5 occasions on […], […], […], […] and […] […] 2021. The Panel took into account that the Member did not contest the fact that these postponements took place. The Panel also took into account the uncontested evidence of […] that all these postponements took place close to the date set for the calls.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Member had postponed the sessions repeatedly and with short notice.
The Panel moved onto consider the allegation in respect of […]. […] gave evidence that the Member had postponed training sessions on at least 5 occasions between […] 2021 and […] 2021.
The Panel took into account that the Member did not contest the fact that these postponements took place. The Panel also took into account the uncontested evidence of […] that all these postponements took place close to the date set for the calls.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Member had postponed the sessions repeatedly and with short notice.
The Panel moved onto consider the allegations in respect of […]. […] gave evidence that the Member had postponed training sessions on 3 occasions on […] 2021, […] 2021 and […] 2021 .The Panel took into account that the Member did not contest the fact that these postponements took place. The Panel also took into account the uncontested evidence of […] that all these postponements took place close to the date set for the calls.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Member had postponed the sessions repeatedly and with short notice.
The Panel moved onto consider the allegations in respect of […]. […] in her written statement said that the Member had only fulfilled a morning session on […] 2021 and did not compete the rest of the training. […] also said that the Member postponed a training session set down for […] on […] 2021. The Panel took into account that the Member did not contest the fact that these postponements took place.
The Panel next considered the allegations in respect of […]. Whilst […] had not given evidence, the Panel noted that the Member did not contest his evidence on facts. […] stated in his written witness statement that on […] 2021 the Member changed the time for a session on […] 2021 and on […] 2021 cancelled a session 10 minutes before it was scheduled to commence.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Member had postponed the sessions with short notice. However, it did not consider that these two occasions amounted to ‘repeated’ postponement.
Given the Panel’s conclusions set out above, the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member had cancelled and/or rearranged therapy appointments and/or walking therapy training and that this occurred repeatedly and with short notice.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (a) (i) and (ii) proved and therefore upheld this allegation.
Allegation 1 (b):
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member did not turn up to one or more arranged sessions.
The Panel first considered the allegation in respect of […]. The Panel noted that the Member did not contest […] evidence on facts. […], in his witness statement, said that on […] 2021 he called the Member for a therapy session and the Member did not answer.
The Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities on […] 2021 the Member failed to turn up to this session with […].
The Panel moved onto consider the allegation in respect of […]. […] gave evidence that on […] 2021 a call had been arranged with the Member, that she sent a message to confirm this, and he did not respond. The Panel noted that the Member did not contest […] evidence on facts.
The Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities on […] 2021 the Member failed to turn up to this arranged session with […].
The Panel moved onto consider the allegation in respect of […]. […] gave evidence that the Member had only fulfilled a morning session on […] 2021 and did not compete the rest of the training on that day. The Panel took into account that the Member did not contest […] evidence on facts.
The Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities on […] 2021 the Member failed to turn up to the second arranged session with […].
The Panel went on to consider the allegation in respect of […]. Whilst […] had not given evidence, the Panel noted that the Member did not contest […] evidence on facts. […] stated in his witness statement that on […] 2021 the Member did not turn up to a remote session.
The Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Member had not turned up to this arranged session with […].
In these circumstances the Panel determined that during 2021 and/or 2022 the Member did not turn up for arranged sessions.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (b) proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
Allegation 1 (c)
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member provided alternative and/or inconsistent reasons for why he had been unable to fulfil arranged therapy sessions and/or walking therapy training.
In considering this allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of […], […], […],[…], […], […] and the Member’s own evidence. The Panel also took into account all relevant documentation.
In considering this allegation the Panel noted that certain messages had been apparently sent by […] and that the Member asserted that […] sent messages of her own volition and the contents were hers. The Panel decided it was required to determine whether these messages should be considered within this allegation.
The Panel consider the Member’s evidence regarding the existence of […] was inherently implausible. He asserted that he did not know her surname, address, telephone number or email, yet had entrusted her with his password for his business email because everyone knew everyone else in the […]. The Panel determined this was a wholly incredible and inherently implausible explanation and did not accept it. Given that the Member did not contest that the emails/messages been sent from his email address or his number and his only further evidence being that he could not recall anything with clarity during the relevant period, the Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, it could be reasonably inferred that the Member was the author of these messages/emails. Consequently, the Panel determined that the contents of these emails/messages should be considered within this allegation. The Panel also took this approach to all other allegations.
In considering this allegation the Panel considered that on a number of occasions the Member had messaged clients saying that he had been admitted to hospital – for example […] on […] 2021, […] on […] 2021, […] on […] 2021 and […] on […] 2021. However, when questioned in cross examination, the Member could not provide any detail about these admissions – for example which hospital he had been admitted to, length of stay and dates of admission. Further, the Member has not provided any independent documentation such as admission or discharge letters to corroborate that he was admitted to hospital. During his evidence the Member made unspecific references to the General Data Protection Regulations to explain this lack of documentation, but provided no specific basis as to why he could not produce this. Further, the Member had produced documentation from his GP and gave no reason why his GP could not provide even general details of such admissions. In these circumstances, the Panel found the Member’s explanation for the lack of documentation to be without foundation. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Member’s explanation as to why he required to postpone or cancel sessions was inconsistent with the evidence he gave to the Panel.
The Panel also took into account that on […] 2021, the Member messaged […] stating that he needed to rearrange the session as he had a migraine, but there was also evidence before the Panel that on this date the Member was seeing other clients. The Panel determined that the Member’s explanation to […] was inconsistent.
The Panel further considered that the message to […] conflicts with the messages from […] to […] on […] 2021, when it was asserted that during the whole of this period the Member was extremely unwell. In his evidence before the Panel the Member stated that he was ‘assessing his capacity’ and did not want to talk to […] because he was setting boundaries as she was abusive. The Panel determined that these explanations were alternative and inconsistent.
The Panel also took into account that the Member gave alternative and inconsistent explanations to […] and […] on […] 2021. He told […] that his […] had become seriously unwell at 06.23 on […] but told […] on the same date that his […] had been sick over the weekend and offered him an appointment the next date. The Panel considered the Member’s explanation that he had the right to say what he wanted to clients to be unacceptable and without foundation. The Panel therefore determined that these explanations were alternative and inconsistent.
The Panel further took into account that on […] 2021 […] told […] that the Member had been involved in a road accident and was in hospital. On the same date, approximately 9 minutes prior to the message from […], the Member messaged […] to cancel a session diarised for the following day. He made no mention of being involved in an accident. The Member could not explain how he managed to message […] if he was in hospital. The Panel therefore determined that these explanations were alternative and inconsistent.
Given the inconsistences identified above the Panel found that, on the balance of probabilities, during 2021 and/or 2022 the Member provided alternative and/or inconsistent reasons for why he had been unable to fulfil arranged therapy sessions and/or walking therapy training.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (c) proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
Allegation 1 (d)
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member did not provide any and/or prompt refunds when unable to fulfil agreements to provide arranged therapy sessions and/or walking therapy training.
In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the written witness statements and oral evidence of […], […] and […] for the BACP and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. It also took into account the hearsay evidence of the written witness statements of […], […], […] and […], together with all relevant documents.
The Panel took into account that the Member did not contest the evidence of the BACP’s witnesses in relation to receipt of refunds. It also noted that the Member had made reference to clients not being entitled to refunds because his company had been dissolved. The Member failed to expand on this argument and the Panel considered it was irrelevant. Further, during his evidence the Member also accepted that he was morally obliged to refund his clients. The Member had also said that during the relevant period he was suffering financial difficulties due to ill health but failed to produce any independent evidence of this. The Panel determined that the Member had not satisfied it on the balance of probabilities that he was not required to make refunds to his clients.
The Panel took into account:
• […] uncontested evidence that he first requested a refund on […] 2021 and made further requests on […] and […] 2021. Following various emails from the Member and […], the Member repaid […] half of the refund requested.
• […] uncontested evidence that she first requested a refund on […] 2021 and chased this on […] and […], clarifying on […] 2021 that only 50% refund was being sought and further chasing this up between […] and […] 2021. […] gave uncontested evidence that the £650 amounting to the 50% refund requested had not been paid.
• The uncontested evidence of […] that she first requested a refund of £100 on […] 2021 and despite further chasers the full amount remains outstanding.
• The uncontested evidence of […] that he first requested a refund of £350 on […] 2021 and despite further chasers until […] had still not received a refund.
• The uncontested evidence of […] that he first requested a refund of £400 on […] 2021, and despite further chasers until […] 2022 had still not received a refund.
• The uncontested evidence of […] that he first requested a refund of £180 on […] 2021, and despite further chasers until […] 2022 had still not received a refund.
• The uncontested evidence of […] that when he texted to say he was stopping therapy with the Member on […] 2021 the Member had stated he could not have a full refund but could receive £400. […] sent chasers on […] and […] August but has still not received a refund.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that, on the balance of probabilities, during 2021 and/or 2022 the Member did not provide any and/or prompt refunds when unable to fulfil agreements to provide therapy sessions and/or walking therapy training.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (d) proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
Allegation 1 (e)
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member Provided inconsistent reasons for his failure to provide a refund.
In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the written witness statements and oral evidence of […] and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. It also took into account the hearsay evidence of the witness statements of […], […] and […], together with the relevant documents.
The Panel also determined that the use of the word ‘met’ in the allegation included remote therapy sessions.
In relation to […], the Panel took into account her uncontested evidence that on […] 2021 […] sent a message to her that the Member was in hospital and would deal with the refund when he was discharged. The Panel also considered that on the same date […] had advised […] that there were limited funds available to pay a refund as the Member was not working. The Panel noted that the Member did not contest this evidence.
In relation to […], the Panel took into account his uncontested evidence that on […] 2021, the Member told him that his accountant was dealing with it, and it would take two weeks for the refund to be made. […] also told the Panel that on […] 2021 he received a message from […] that the Member was in hospital, on […] 2021 that the Member was so unwell he could not contact his accountant, on […] 2021 that details had been sent to the accountant and payment should have been received on […] 2023 and then on […] 2021 was told by […] that there were limited funds in the Member’s account due to his not working.
In relation to […], the Panel took into account his uncontested evidence that on […] 2021 then he requested a refund, […] replied that she doubted that a refund would be given ‘without a good reason’. On […] 2021, […] sent an email stating that the Member was in hospital and could not take voice calls. On […] 2021 […] stated that the Member was still in hospital and would respond when he got back to work. When […] again asked for a refund on […] 2021, […] replied that the Member had limited funds and suggested a refund being paid in four instalments.
In relation to […], the Panel took into account that on […] 2021 when he sent the Member a message stopping therapy, the Member told him he could not have a full refund but offered 50% for the remaining sessions. On […] 2021. The Member told […] that it would take 30 days to make a refund and on […] 2021 the Member stated that he was on holiday.
The Panel found the Member’s explanations in each case to be inconsistent and therefore determined, on the balance of probabilities, that during 2021 and/or 2022 the Member provided inconsistent reasons for his failure to provide a refund.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (e) proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
Allegation 1 (f)
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member met clients and presented appearing disinterested.
In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the witness statements of […], […] and […], together with all relevant documents. It also took into account the written responses and oral evidence of the Member.
In relation to […], the Panel considered her evidence that during the training on the morning of […] 2021 the Member appeared distracted and disorientated. In his evidence the Member said that in general he had little memory of this period due to ill health and in particular had no recollection if he had appeared disorientated or disinterested.
In relation to […], the Panel took into account that he gave evidence that when conducting remote therapy with him, the Member appeared distracted and also appeared to be conducting the sessions on his phone rather on a computer. Again, the Member gave evidence that he had little memory of this period due to ill health
In relation to […], the Panel took into account his evidence that during remote therapy sessions the Member did not seem interested, appeared to be doing something at the same time and was not prepared. Again, the Member gave evidence that he had little memory of this period due to ill health.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that during 2021 and/or 2022 the Member met clients and presented appearing disinterested.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (f) proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
Allegation 1 (g)
During 2021 and/or 2022 the Member sent communications to clients that were:
(i) rude and/or
(ii) unempathetic and/or
(iii) unprofessional and/or
(iv) in breach of client confidentiality if they were sent by a person other than himself.
In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the witness statement and oral evidence of […] and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. It also took into account the witness statements of […], […], […] and […], together with all relevant documents.
The Panel determined that throughout his communication with clients during the relevant period the Member had been, rude, unempathetic and unprofessional. For example, in relation to […], […] sent an email on […] 2021 stating, ‘Your ongoing disrespect for his ill-health and well-being is noted and is a great shame’. In relation to […] […] sent an email on […] 2021 stating ‘’[…] was in a road traffic accident with whiplash and concussion … so personally quite amazed and shocked that this is not being empathized [sic] with in any way and used for a reason to seek a refund.’ The Panel considered that emails and messages to […], […], […] and […] were in similar terms.
In these circumstances, the Panel determined that during 2021 and/or 2022 the Member sent communications to clients that were rude, unempathetic and unprofessional.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegations 1 (g) (i), (ii) and (iii) proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
In relation to allegation 1 (g) (iv), for the reasons set out above, the Panel had determined that […] did not exist, and that the Member was the author of all communication sent in her name. Given this determination the Panel determined that no communications were sent by a person other than the Member.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 1 (g) (iv) not proved and therefore dismissed this Allegation.
Finding
In respect of the allegations upheld at 1 (a) – (f) and (g) (i), (ii) and (iii) the Panel found that the Member’s acts and omissions were inconsistent with and in breach of paragraph 29, 35, 43, 48, and 49 of the Ethical Framework. The Panel further determined that, as it had determined that […] did not exist only paragraph 55 (b) was engaged and breached. The Panel further determined that the attitudinal issues and approach of the Member to clients was inconsistent with and in breach of paragraphs 74 and 79.
Decision
The Panel went on to consider whether the Member's conduct which it found proved in relation to allegations 1 (a) – (f) and (g) (i), (ii) and (iii) amounted to Professional Misconduct, as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:
‘professional misconduct means 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’.
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Member’s failure to comply with the professional standards were of sufficient seriousness that they amounted to Professional Misconduct, specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 29, 35, 43, 48, and 49, 55 (b), 74 and 79 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Allegation 2
The Member failed to set out clearly the details of the terms of the relationship and/or confirm in writing what he stated was agreed verbally with one or more clients during 2021 and/or 2022, as follows:
(a) original complainant […] and/or
(b) original complainant […] and/or
(c) original complainant […] and/or
(d) original complainant […] and/or
(e) original complainant […] and/or
(f) original complainant […] and/or
(g) original complainant […]
In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the witness statements and oral evidence of […], […] and […] and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. It also took into account the written witness statements of […], […], […] and […], together with all relevant documents. (The BACP witness are the clients as identified by complainant number above.)
The Panel first considered whether the Member was required to set out clearly the details of the terms of his relationship with clients or to provide a written contract. Having considered paragraph 31 of the Ethical Framework, it was satisfied that the Member was required to do so.
All the BACP witnesses told the Panel that they had not received any written contract - this was not contested by the Member. Further, all witnesses stated that they had not had any conversation with the Member regarding a verbal contract. The Panel took into account the Member’s evidence that the ‘booklet’ provided to some clients constituted the contract terms, but there was no evidence before the Panel showing that any clients who received this ‘booklet’ were advised that this constituted a contract nor did the Member provide any ‘booklets’ signed by the clients. Further, the Panel did not accept that the Member’s evidence that ‘he always discussed his contract verbally’. His position on this matter contradicted his repeated statement that he recalled very little of what occurred during the relevant period.
The Panel therefore determined that the Member failed to set out clearly the details of the terms of the relationship and/or confirm in writing what he stated was agreed verbally with one or more clients during 2021 and/or 2022.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 2 proved and therefore upheld this allegation.
Finding
The Panel determined that in acting in the manner set out in allegation 2 the Member’s acts and omissions were inconsistent with and in breach of paragraph 31 of the Ethical Framework.
Decision
The Panel went on to consider whether the Member's conduct which it found proved in relation to allegation 2 amounted to a breach of the professional standards as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:
“Professional standards means standards that should reasonably be expected of a Member having regard to the Ethical Framework and any other code or rules issued for the purpose of this Procedure by the Association from time to time concerning the standards expected of members”
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Member had failed to comply with the professional standards specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraph 31 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Allegation 3
On one or more occasions the Member held himself out as sufficiently well to work but subsequently failed to fulfil planned sessions of therapy and/or walking therapy citing his poor health.
In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the written witness statements and oral evidence of […], […] and […] and the written responses and oral evidence of the Member. It also took into account the witness statements of […], […], […] and […], together with all relevant documents.
Within its reasons in relation to allegation 1.1 the Panel has set out numerous examples of the Member stating to clients that he was not well enough to undertake training or therapy.
In relation to all the postponements or cancellations identified in the Panel’s decision in allegation 1.1, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had arranged these sessions and as such was holding himself out to be sufficiently well to undertake work, when he was not.
The Panel therefore determined that on one or more occasions the Member held himself out as sufficiently well to work but subsequently failed to fulfil planned sessions of therapy and/or walking therapy citing his poor health.
The panel found the facts set out in Allegation 3 proved and therefore upheld this Allegation.
Finding
The Panel determined that in acting in the manner set out in allegation 3, the Member’s acts and omissions were inconsistent with and in breach of paragraphs 18 and 91 of the Ethical Framework.
Decision
The Panel went on to consider whether the Member's conduct which it found proved in relation to Allegation 3 amounted to a breach of the professional standards as defined by the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states
“Professional standards means standards that should reasonably be expected of a Member having regard to the Ethical Framework and any other code or rules issued for the purpose of this Procedure by the Association from time to time concerning the standards expected of members”
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Member had failed to comply with the professional standards specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 18 and 91 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
Before deciding on sanction, the Case Manager will invite the Member to make any written representations which they wish the Panel to take into consideration when deciding an appropriate sanction. The Member will be given 14 days on receipt of this decision to do so. The Panel may, where it considers it appropriate, list a further hearing for the purpose of sanction.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on […] and […] 2024 to determine the appropriate sanction (if any) to impose on the Member. It reminded itself of its findings above and the provisions of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 and BACP Indicative Sanctions Guidance.
The Panel had before it a number of documents submitted by the Member as his submissions on sanction. These consisted of:
1. Client feedback forms – 5 documents
2. Contract forms – 3 documents
3. Counselling evidence – 2 electronic messages
4. Cover letter of mitigation factors – 7 pages, unsigned and undated
5. GP medical assessment – 1 page, unsigned, dated […] 2024
6. Insurance documents – 5 documents
7. Limited company documents – 4 documents
8. Medical certificates – 9 documents
9. PiP information – 2 extracts from Gov.uk website
10. Refund information – 10 documents
11. Reviews – 8 extracts from Amazon website
12. Supervision documents – 2 clinical supervision statements and 1 letter of support (unsigned and undated)
13. “What I’ve done recently” – 6 documents, various, including YouTube video
Decision
The Panel gave careful consideration to the Member’s submissions. It considered that a number of the documents submitted by the Member were unverified. In particular:
• The client feedback forms contained no context or details and dates were removed.
• The GP medical assessment was from a different practice to the medical certificates, was from a GP who had not been involved in the Member’s care at the time and was unsigned.
• The Supervisor statements appeared to cover periods when the Member was signed off as unfit for work.
The letter of support was unsigned and undated.
The Panel therefore gave those documents limited weight in its considerations.
In deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Panel took into account the BACP Indicative Sanctions Guidance.
It first considered the mitigating factors:
• The Member’s ill health – the Panel noted the medical certificates provided by the Member. However, it considered that these offered limited mitigation given its findings in relation to Allegation 3 above.
• The Member had offered apologies and refunds to some clients.
• The Member’s difficult personal and financial circumstances at the time.
The Panel then considered the aggravating factors:
• The Member’s submissions on sanction do not directly address the Panel’s findings or take responsibility for the conduct found proved.
• The Panel found the Member’s evidence at the hearing to be incredible and implausible.
• The Member does not acknowledge or demonstrate remorse for the harm caused to counselling clients, or the financial loss or inconvenience to training clients.
• The allegations relate to multiple complainants.
• The allegations found proved pose a risk to the reputation of the counselling profession.
The Panel went on to consider the appropriate sanction (if any) to impose on the Member. The Panel reminded itself that the purpose of a sanction is to protect the public and to safeguard public interest. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive.
The Panel first considered whether any sanction is required. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct found proved requires a sanction to be imposed to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.
The Panel considered whether the Member’s misconduct could be addressed by requiring him to write letters of apology to the complainants. It noted that the Member had in some cases apologised to the complainants, although the Panel did not consider that those apologies adequately took responsibility for his conduct. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider that the Member had understood or accepted the need to improve his practice in the future and it did not believe therefore that letters of apology to previous complainants would adequately protect clients in the future.
The Panel next considered whether the Member’s misconduct could be addressed by a requirement to demonstrate change or improvement in his practice. It noted that in his submissions, the Member does not take responsibility for his conduct but continues to maintain that the matters found proved were due to factors beyond his control. The Panel did not consider that the Member accepts the need for improvement in his practice and it decided therefore that a requirement to demonstrate change would not protect the public or safeguard public interest.
The Panel next considered whether the imposition of a period of suspension would adequately protect the public. The Panel noted that the allegations found proved related to events which occurred between 2020 and 2022. Since then the Member has not developed any insight into his conduct or on the impact of his behaviour on clients. There was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that a further period of reflection would be likely to lead to the Member developing an appropriate level of insight. The Panel did not consider therefore that a period of suspension would protect the public in the future.
The Panel therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction is withdrawal of membership. The Panel was mindful that withdrawal of membership is the most serious sanction; however, the Panel considered that this is the only sanction in this case which will adequately protect the public and safeguard public interest. In reaching this decision, the Panel found the following:
• The Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards.
• The Member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, his behaviour.
• The Member has knowingly caused harm to counselling and training clients.
• The Member has provided both documentary and oral evidence which the Panel has found to be inconsistent, incredible and inherently implausible.
• In the light of the allegations found proved, the Member’s continued membership of BACP is likely to undermine confidence in the profession.
The Panel therefore withdraws the Member’s membership of BACP. This decision will not take effect until the appeal period has passed.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)