Professional Conduct Notices

The Society’s complaints procedures seek to be open, transparent and proportionate. Sanctions issued by either the Assessment Panel or by the Independent Complaints Panel following a complaints hearing will be published on the Society’s website.

Should a Registrant be issued an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) during a complaint investigation the ISO will appear as an annotation on the Registrant’s Public Register entry. In addition, their name and date of issue of ISO will be placed on the Professional Conduct Notices section of the Society’s website.

The publication of such decisions provides information about the standards expected of Registrants; assists clients to make informed choices and helps to maintain public confidence in the Accredited Register programme.

We aim to strike a balance and consider the rights of both clients and Registrants and take account of the risk of any harm that may arise from the disclosure or non-disclosure of information.

Details of sanctions will appear as an annotation to a Registrant’s online register entry. In addition, an outline of the case will be placed on the website's ‘Professional Conduct Notices’ section. A note of the complaint will be added to the member’s file.

Upon sanction completion, the Society will change the online register entry to reflect that the sanction has been met. The Society will display the “Sanction Met” annotation and the outline of the case under the Outcome of Complaints section for a further period of 6 months after completion of the sanction. The Registrant’s file will be updated.

If a sanction is not met, the Society will change the online register entry to “Sanction Not Met” and information on the Professional Conduct Notices page will be published on the Society website for a period of five years.

In cases where a Registrant is removed from the Register, or accepts Voluntary Removal following a panel hearing, the published decision will remain on the website for a period of five years.

If there is no sanction, then no information will be published on the Society’s website.

The Society’s complaints procedures seek to be open, transparent and proportionate. Sanctions issued by either the Assessment Panel or by the Independent Complaints Panel following a complaints hearing will be published on the Society’s website.

Should a member be issued an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) during a complaint investigation the ISO the Non-Registrant member 's name and date of issue of ISO will be placed on the Professional Conduct Notices section of the Society’s website.

The publication of such decisions provides information about the standards expected of members; assists clients to make informed choices and helps to maintain public confidence in The Society.

We aim to strike a balance and consider the rights of both clients and members and take account of the risk of any harm that may arise from the disclosure or non-disclosure of information.

Details of sanctions will appear as an outline of the case and will be placed on the ‘Professional Conduct Notices’ section of the website. A note of the complaint will be added to the member’s file.

Upon completion of the sanction, the Society will change the entry on the Professional Conduct Notice page to reflect that the sanction has been met. The Society will display the “Sanction Met” on the outline of the case under the Outcomes of Complaints section for a further period of 6 months after completion of the sanction. The members’ file will be updated.

If a sanction is not met, the Society will change the information on the Professional Conduct Notices page to reflect that “Sanction Not Met”. This will be published on the Society website for a period of five years.

In cases where a member is removed from the Society membership or accepts Voluntary Removal following a panel hearing, the published decision will remain on the website for a period of five years.

If there is no sanction, then no information will be published on the Society’s website.

NCS17-05329

Date of Assessment Panel 25/06/2024

Outcome of Complaint

Conditions on Membership

Outline of Complaint

The complaint related to a long term therapeutic relationship that began as relationship therapy but moved to individual therapy for each. The complaint indicated a breach of confidentiality and boundaries. In addition, the Registrant also completed shorter term therapeutic work with other members of the extended family, and in doing so failed to identify that she created dual relationships and conflicts of interest.

Discussion

The Panel noted that some of the specific allegations raised by the Complainant concerned dual or multiple relationships. The Registrant maintained that her working with six clients who were related to each other did not constitute dual or multiple relationships as described in the Code of Ethical Practice. The Registrant stated that this was because her relationship with each of them was therapeutic in nature and did not involve any other form of relationship. Whilst accepting this as factually correct, the Panel nevertheless considered that to work in this way was fraught with risks that the Registrant showed no sign of understanding or taking into account. The Panel concluded that issues of confidentiality, termination, recordkeeping, and conflicts of interest were highly likely to arise in such a scenario, and went onto note that even a highly experienced practitioner with substantial specialist training would, in the Panel’s view, likely struggle to enable the clients to communicate freely and without fear that their conversations will be disclosed to others.

Panel Findings

The Panel found that there had been breaches of the NCPS Code of Ethical Practice in the following respects.

Fundamental principles

1. Working towards the good of clients and doing no harm (Beneficence and Non-maleficence)

2. Being trustworthy and responsible (Fidelity)

5. Integrity and self-responsibility

Offering a service

All Practitioners undertake to:

3. Discuss with clients realistic outcomes and limitations of the service offered.

Confidentiality, Maintenance and Recording of Sessions

All Practitioners undertake to:

4. Ensure that client records are appropriate, accurate, relevant, lawful and secure. 

SANCTIONS

The Panel concluded that on balance the breaches of the Code were not serious enough to warrant removal or immediate suspension from the main Counselling and Psychotherapy Register. They agreed that a number of Conditions on registration were appropriate.

Consensual Disposal

The Panel offered the Registrant Consensual Disposal as follows:

1) Admitting the breaches of the Code as set out above and

2) Ceasing to offer work with couples, families and clients who are related to others of her clients until such time as specialist relationship therapy training acceptable to the Society may be undertaken and completed.

3) Undertaking the following sanctions which constitute a condition on registration

i. Undertaking to completion additional training to the satisfaction of the Society in the following subjects:

• Professional Boundaries.

• Reflexive practice in counselling

and providing evidence to the satisfaction of the Society of completion of said training within six months of the date of accepting Consensual Disposal.

ii. For a minimum period of three months from the date of accepting Consensual Disposal, having individual face-to-face in-the-room supervision of no fewer than 3 hours per month focused in part on her learning from her work with the Complainant and its subsequent application, and providing evidence to the satisfaction of the Society that such supervision has taken place.

iii. Produce a detailed written report, supported in detail by her supervisor, of no fewer than 3,000 words, in which she accounts for and clarifies the mistakes in this case as notified to her and what learning she has taken from this experience, additional training and supervision. This report is to be submitted no earlier than three months and no later than six months from the date of accepting Consensual Disposal.

Suspension from the Society’s Children and Young People’s Therapist Accredited Register

In view of the fact that the Registrant works with children and young people, a particularly vulnerable client group, the Panel were sufficiently concerned by her overall conduct to require immediate suspension from the Children and Young People’s Therapist Register.

Reinstatement onto this Register to be considered once the above conditions are fulfilled.

The Registrant accepted the Assessment Panel findings and offer of Consensual Disposal.

The Complainant exercised her right of Appeal. The outcome remained unchanged.

NCS20-00502

Assessment Panel Findings returned 06^th August 2024

Outline of Complaint

The complaint was raised by a former client of the Registrant following an abrupt end to the therapeutic relationship and the communication exchanges that followed. The complainant stated that the ending was particularly difficult for her to process due to the enmeshment of the Registrant within her friendship group. This was supported by a witness statement and evidence. In view of the serious nature of the allegations made by the complainant, the Society’s Professional Conduct Team sought an Interim Suspension Order and this was ratified by the Chair of the Assessment Panel on 05^th February 2024.

The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was at the centre of a web of multiple and overlapping relationships. The evidence, provided by both the complainant and the Registrant indicated that it was unclear as to when she was acting as a friend or a therapist to multiple clients.

The Panel were satisfied that the Registrant had conducted therapy with at least three clients who were part of a network of personal relationships in which she herself participated. This made it impossible to maintain the boundaries appropriate to a therapeutic relationship, for example where confidentiality was concerned.

The Panel were not convinced by what the Registrant asserted about contracting and supervision. On the balance of probability, they were satisfied that there were very unlikely to have been any contracts with the Complainant and that the Registrant had failed to access adequate supervision. There found that there was no evidence to support supervision for her psychotherapy and counselling work with the Complainant and no evidence to support supervision for ending therapy with the Complainant or throughout the process of the complaint.

Findings

Overall, the Panel found that the Registrant showed, and continued to show, a fundamental and alarming lack of insight into the serious nature of the risks arising from her conduct.

The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct during her work with the Complainant and others and her apparent lack of insight or concern about its potential consequences, suggested that the Registrant poses a serious risk to the public and to the profession.

The Panel found that the matters that the Registrant has admitted to, together with the Panel’s finding of the Registrant’s overall lack of insight into her own responsibility, constitute severe and multiple breaches of the following fundamental principles of the Code of Ethical Practice:

1. Working towards the good of clients and doing no harm (Beneficence).

2. Being trustworthy and responsible (Fidelity)

3. Respect for the dignity and rights of the client (Autonomy)

4. Justice

5. Integrity and self-responsibility

In addition, the Registrant did not uphold the following undertakings under Offering a Service:

1. Provide a service to clients solely in areas in which they are trained and competent to do so.

2. Ensure that the premises where counselling takes place, and all facilities offered to clients are suitable, appropriate for the service provided and respectful of the clients need for privacy.

9. Agree clear and transparent contracts and/or terms and conditions, in writing where appropriate, which do not use unreasonable terms or restrict the statutory rights of clients.

In addition, the Registrant did not uphold the following undertakings under Delivering a Service:

1. Work in ways that promote client autonomy and well-being and that maintain respect and dignity for the client

3. Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to:

a. Cross the boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship.

5. Should any relationship (i.e. any enduring personal or professional connection other than the clinical relationship between client and therapist) occur or develop between either counsellor and client, or members of their respective immediate families, the therapist should consult their supervisor at the earliest opportunity. It is likely to be appropriate to cease accepting fees work towards terminating the counselling relationship in an appropriate manner and arranging a carefully considered referral to another suitable therapist at the earliest opportunity

7. Remain aware of their own limitations and wherever appropriate, be prepared to refer a client to another practitioner or medical adviser who might be expected to offer suitable support.

In addition, the Registrant did not uphold the following undertakings under Confidentiality, Maintenance of Records and Recording of Sessions:

1. Maintain strict confidentiality within the client/counsellor relationship, always provided that such confidentiality is neither inconsistent with the therapist’s own safety or the safety of the client, the client’s family members or other members of the public, nor in contravention of any legal action (i.e. criminal, coroner or civil court cases where a court order is made demanding disclosure) or legal requirement (Children Acts).

In addition, the Registrant did not uphold the following undertaking under General Conduct:

1. Conduct themselves at all times in accord with their professional status and in such a way as neither undermines public confidence in the process or profession of counselling, nor brings it into disrepute, being aware of professional and personal boundaries.

In addition, the Registrant did not uphold the following undertaking under Appendix C: Communications and Social Media

….before providing counselling or advice/suggestions via any online platform/text messaging/email the practitioner should have considerations in place to deal with the following:

The danger that a client may believe he or she has 24-hour accessibility to the therapist.

SANCTION

The Panel finds that the serious and substantive breaches of the Code of Ethical Practice are such that the Registrant should be removed from the Society’s Accredited Register. The Panel offers the Registrant Consensual Disposal in the form of an option of agreeing to Voluntary Removal from the Register.

The Registrant did not appeal the Assessment Panel Findings.

NCS17-05591

Outcome of Complaint

Six months Suspension and Conditions on Registration

Panel Finding Returned 13^th June 2024

Outline of Complaint

The complaint relates to a long term therapeutic relationship that broke down following the cancellation of an appointment and the text communications in relation to the cancellation. The therapeutic relationship ended in an unplanned way at the following session.

Following from receiving no further contact from the Registrant, despite an unplanned ending, she reflected on the therapeutic relationship and became concerned that the therapeutic relationship had lacked boundaries throughout and that the Registrant had over shared details of her own circumstances throughout the 5 years. The client provided a detailed statement of complaint and evidence in the form of photographs shared by the Registrant with the complainant and text messages exchanged, which supported her complaint.

The Registrant provided a detailed response to the complaint.

Discussion

The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant was inexperienced at the outset of her work with this client. They also took into account that the work had continued over a period of approximately five years, providing a substantial opportunity for reflection, continued learning and modification of practice. They recognised that the Registrant did not seek to refute a substantial number of the allegations but maintained that she does not behave in such ways with other clients.

The Panel discussed the Registrant’s change of approach in the form of introducing a form of mentoring at the Complainant’s request and noted that the Registrant seemed largely unaware of the implications of so doing. They also considered the implications of the decision to accept the Complainant’s **redacted** as a client and to see him in the complainant’s home.

The Panel noted that the Registrant stated that she had sought extra supervisory support, personal therapy and training but they could find no account of how this has been beneficial.

They discussed the contribution of the Registrant’s supervisors and were alarmed by the fact that the Registrant’s behaviour had, apparently, given them no cause for concern.

The Panel considered how confident they could be that the Registrant’s unboundaried approach was not being used with other clients, and that it would not be repeated in the future.

Findings

The complaint concerning the Registrant’s behaviour during the final session was not upheld, due to lack of firm evidence.

The complaint where it concerns alleged lack of care following the last session was upheld.

The complaint where it concerns inappropriate and unboundaried conduct was upheld based on the Registrant’s own admissions and the evidence in the form of text messages and photos.

The Panel considered that the parties disagreed about the Registrant’s alleged behaviour during the last session and that the only evidence available was that the Registrant admitted swearing once during the session. They thought it probable that the Registrant did behave somewhat aggressively but could reach no firm conclusion about this.

They agreed that the decision not to make any attempt to contact the Complainant after what had happened was highly questionable in terms of her duty of care and that the supervisor’s apparent comment about disrespecting the client’s autonomy was most implausible.

The Panel agreed that they were convinced, and very concerned, that the Registrant’s overall conduct of the work was extremely unboundaried and highly likely to cause significant harm to a client with complex needs which the Registrant seemed unable to recognise.

They found the communications initiated by the Registrant, for which there was evidence, to be highly inappropriate and fraught with risk to the client and to the profession.

The Panel found that the introduction of a form of mentoring into the therapy, for example by suggesting various treatments and activities, to be potentially confusing for the client and that the Registrant in her response shows no understanding of this. The choice to work with the **redacted** also gave the Panel significant cause for concern.

The Panel found that there had been clear breaches of the NCPS Code of Ethical Practice in the following respects.

Fundamental principles

1. Working towards the good of clients and doing no harm (Beneficence and Non-maleficence)

The Registrant did not in the Panel’s view, exercise appropriate caution and reasonably sound judgment in choosing and proposing a way of working likely to avoid the risk of harm.

2. Being trustworthy and responsible (Fidelity)

The Registrant failed, in the Panel’s view, to honour the trust placed in her. Her behaviour fell short of being appropriately respectful, professional and ethically sound.

5. Integrity and self-responsibility

The Registrant failed, in the Panel’s view, to take sufficient account of the limitations of her own expertise and training when deciding if and how to work with this client.

Offering a service

All Practitioners undertake to:

3. Discuss with clients realistic outcomes and limitations of the service offered.

The Panel found the Registrant had failed to make clear what the client could reasonably expect to be achieved as the therapy unfolded.

Delivering a service

All Practitioners undertake to:

3. Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to:

a. Cross the boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship

The Panel found that the Registrant had repeatedly crossed a number of boundaries, including in her communications and in her decision to see the Complainant’s **redacted** in the Complainant’s home.

SUPERVISION

The Panel also considered the Reports from the Registrant’s previous and current clinical supervisor. They found them brief and somewhat perfunctory. The previous supervisor states that the importance of keeping proper boundaries was “discussed” without showing any apparent awareness of what was actually happening in this regard. He describes the Registrant as “eager to abide by your professional body’s ethical framework” without mentioning any ways in which she might have been failing to do so.

MITIGATION

The Panel took into account that the Registrant had to some extent recognised her mistakes and shortcomings and has proposed and embarked on remedial actions

SANCTIONS

The Panel concluded that on balance the breaches of the Code were serious enough to warrant suspension from the Register, with reinstatement being dependent on satisfactory fulfilment of a number of conditions.

Consensual Disposal

The Panel offered the Registrant Consensual Disposal as follows:

• Six months’ suspension from the Society’s Accredited Register

• Re-admission to the Register subject to the following conditions:

1) Admitting the breaches of the Code as set out above and

2) Undertaking the following sanctions which constitute a condition on registration

i. Undertaking additional training to the satisfaction of the Society in the following subjects:

• Ethics in Counselling and Psychotherapy
• Professional Boundaries.
• Attachment theory
• An understanding of Attachment theory and its application to clients presenting with similar issues to those of the Complainant.
• The importance of clear and consistent boundaries where the conduct and management of therapy is concerned.
• Assessment of new clients in terms of their complexity and vulnerability

and providing evidence to the satisfaction of the Society of completion of said training within six months of the date of accepting Consensual Disposal.

ii. Engaging a different supervisor and, for a minimum period of three months, having individual face-to-face in-the-room supervision of no fewer than 3 hours per month focused in part on her learning from her work with the Complainant and its subsequent application, and providing evidence to the satisfaction of the Society that such supervision has taken place.

iii. Produce a detailed written report, supported in detail by her supervisor, of no fewer than 3000 words in which she accounts for and clarifies the mistakes in this case as notified to her and what learning she has taken from this experience, additional training and supervision. In particular, the Panel is seeking evidence of learning and development of practice in respect of:

•An understanding of Attachment theory and its application to clients presenting with similar issues to those of the Complainant.
•The importance of clear and consistent boundaries where the conduct and management of therapy is concerned.
•Assessment of new clients in terms of their complexity and vulnerability

This report is to be submitted no earlier than three months and no later than six months from the date of accepting Consensual Disposal.

The Registrant accepted the Assessment Panel findings and offer of Consensual Disposal.

NCS18-06895

Assessment Panel Findings 04^th April 2023

Outcome of Complaint

Voluntary Removal from Accredited Register on 12^th April 2023

Outline of Complaint

A formal complaint was raised against Mark Parker, a Registrant of the Society, ‘the Registrant’ on 09/11/2022. In view of the serious nature of the allegations made by the Complainant, the Society’s PCO sought an interim suspension order and this was ratified by the Assessment Panel Chair on 25/11/2022.

The Complainant states that she was admitted to a private clinic for help with her mental health and increasing reliance on alcohol where she stayed for a period of 8 weeks. She then continued with day care twice a week for several months after this. Her main therapist was the Registrant, and he conducted all her 1:1 therapy sessions whilst she was an inpatient. In addition, the Registrant provided 1:1 sessions privately at his clinic.

The Complainant states that she shared with the Registrant that she had developed a crush. Rather than deal with her feelings in a professional and ethical manner, the Registrant, “completely ran with it”.

The evidence provided by the Complainant included extensive text messages between the Complainant and the Registrant evidencing all elements of the complaint.

Registrant’s response

The following allegations made by the Complainant are admitted by the Registrant in his written responses:

• “Intimacy” took place between the Registrant and Complainant on a number of occasions.
• The Registrant and Complainant spent “many hours” on the phone together outside sessions.
• The Registrant did join the Complainant in drinking alcohol.
• **Redacted **
• The Registrant did express negative views about other therapists to the Complainant.

Findings

The Assessment Panel considered the evidence carefully, and members provided the Chair with detailed notes which they had prepared for the purpose of the Panel’s assessment discussions. The Panel agreed that the Registrant had engaged in extensive communication with the Complainant outside therapy sessions in which he expressed personal needs and desires inappropriate to the conduct of ethically sound therapy. He allowed the relationship to become intimate and potentially destructive for the Complainant’s mental health and wellbeing. They further agreed that the Registrant was clearly aware that his behaviour was breaching the usual therapeutic boundaries and that he nevertheless, with this awareness, wilfully persisted in this behaviour over a significant period of time. He had also indulged in criticising and maligning other members of the profession.

The Panel were satisfied that there was clear and unchallenged evidence of serious and multiple breaches of the following aspects of the NCS Code of Ethical Practice.

Fundamental Principles:

1. Working towards the good of clients and doing no harm

2. Being trustworthy and responsible.

5. Integrity and self-responsibility

Delivering a Service

1.Work in ways that promote client autonomy and well-being and that maintain respect and dignity for the client.

3. Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to a. cross the boundaries….

10.Take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the client….

11.Deliver counselling in an appropriate way.

General Conduct

1.Conduct themselves at all times in accord with their professional status…

3.Never publicly criticise, malign or professionally obstruct another member of the profession.

In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s behaviour as evidenced and admitted is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered professional, his fitness to practise is severely impaired and there is a clear risk to public safety.

Sanction

The Panel agreed that the breaches of the Code of Ethics would be substantial enough to warrant removal from the Register should an Independent Complaints Panel make a finding that on the basis of the evidence, the Code was breached in this manner.

Accordingly, the Panel believes that the appropriate offer to the Registrant is voluntary removal from the Register by way of Consensual Disposal.

Outcome

On 12^th April 2023, Mark Parker, the Registrant, admitted the breaches of the National Counselling Society Code of Ethics as presented to him in the Assessment Panel Findings Report. The Registrant agreed to being removed from the Register by way of Consensual Disposal thus avoiding the emotional stress of a hearing for both parties whilst providing protection to the public.

Assessment Panel December 2022

Outcome: Removal From Membership

In September and October 2021, the National Counselling Society received 3 formal complaints relating to Non-registrant Member, Jon-Pierre Dubois and the counselling he had provided. During the investigation period, it was noted that the non-registrant member was advertising his services on a public directory whilst declaring his membership of NCS- in contravention of the signed terms and conditions submitted by the member. During the course of enquiries into the complaints, the Professional Conduct Officer requested copies of Insurance and evidence of CPD which the non-registrant member did not provide. In addition, the non-registrant member declined to provide the name of a Supervisor.

Findings:

Terms and Conditions of Membership

The Panel finds that the member is in breach of the following Terms and Conditions of Membership:

• Failure to provide evidence of supervision as part of a complaints process

• Failure to provide evidence of insurance as part of a complaints process audit

• Failure to provide evidence of CPD as part of a complaints process audit

• Utilizing non-registrant membership of the Society in advertising with a public directory in contravention of the signed T&C submitted by the member

• Practising counselling using an online only qualification deemed insufficient for safe, competent and ethical practice by the Society

Complaints

The three complaints received allude to multiple alleged breaches of the Code of Ethics, including but not limited to:

• Breaches of confidentiality (Code of Ethical Practice: Confidentiality, Maintenance of Records and Recording of Sessions section)

• Inappropriate and unboundaried therapy (Code of Ethical Practice: Delivering a Service section 3)

• Failure to respect client autonomy (Code of Ethical Practice: Fundamental Principle 3)

• Failure to act in respect of client welfare (Code of Ethical Practice: Fundamental Principle 1)

The Assessment Panel found the evidence presented was extensive and detailed and included text messages in addition to allegations concerning what was said during sessions. The text messages demonstrate that it is likely the member was aware of the boundary and transference issues mentioned in the allegations.

The Assessment Panel noted that the member’s refutation of the complaints rested primarily on a claim that the allegations are simply untrue.

The Panel took the view that a full Independent Complaints Panel hearing would be necessary to deal appropriately with these complaints should consensual disposal not be accepted.

The Panel took into account three main factors:

• Non cooperation with complaints

• Violation of T&C in advertising

• The substantive nature of the client complaints

The Panel’s decision was that membership should be terminated forthwith.

Consensual disposal

The member was offered admission of the above findings and voluntary removal from Society membership.

Jon-Pierre Dubois did not respond to the findings and therefore is removed from the membership.

AH00P18

Outcome of Complaints:

Voluntary Removal from Register 5^th August 2021

Outline of Complaints:

In April 2021, the NCS received a complaint regarding Alison Hill and there was sufficient evidence for the case to be progressed to Assessment Panel. The complaint centres on the fact that the Registrant began a therapeutic relationship with a client but failed to provide boundaries. The Registrant shared, unsolicited, intimate details of her own life and personal problems and it is demonstrated she corresponded with the complainant in a manner more akin to personal friendship as opposed to the therapy the client was paying for. This caused significant distress to the client. In addition, it was evidenced that Alison Hill attempted to pursue a business venture with the client.

In May 2021, The NCS received a second complaint relating to a historic therapeutic relationship which concluded in 2018. There was evidence that the Registrant attempted to embark on a business venture with the client after building a friendship into their therapeutic relationship. The Complainant, having had time to reflect on the therapy they received, felt aggrieved and distressed that professional boundaries had been crossed in such a way.

Assessment Panel Findings:

The Assessment Panel found that Alison Hill had committed the following breaches of the NCS Code of Ethics:

Regarding Complaint 1:

Fundamental Principles

Working towards the good of clients and doing no harm (Beneficence and Non-maleficence) Practitioners hold the welfare of clients central to their work and so commit to avoiding harm.

And

Being trustworthy and responsible (Fidelity)

Practitioners …….act in a respectful, professional and ethical manner when representing their profession.

And

Integrity and self-responsibility

Practitioners work to be as honest, truthful and accurate as possible. They are also responsible for looking after their own needs and health. So, a practitioner will only commit to a practice that they can offer being aware of own expertise, training, health and wellbeing and let the client know if anything changes.

Delivering a Service

All Practitioners undertake to:

1. Work in ways that promote client autonomy and well-being and that maintain respect and dignity for the client.

3. Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to:

a. Cross the boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship.

5. Should any relationship (i.e. any enduring personal or professional connection other than the clinical relationship between client and therapist) occur or develop between either counsellor and client……….the therapist should consult their supervisor at the earliest opportunity.

7. Remain aware of their own limitations and wherever appropriate, be prepared to refer a client to another practitioner or medical adviser who might be expected to offer suitable treatment.

General Conduct

All Practitioners undertake to:

1. Conduct themselves at all times in accord with their professional status and in such a way as neither undermines public confidence in the process or profession of counselling, nor brings it into disrepute, being aware of professional and personal boundaries.

6. Ensure that they maintain the highest level of communication with clients (avoiding abbreviation and shorthand) whether by telephone; email; text or any other social media messaging service. See (Appendix C)

Appendix C: Communications and Social Media

However, before providing counselling or advice/suggestions via any online platform/text messaging/email the practitioner should have considerations in place to deal with the following:

• Crisis prevention planning and frequency of contact etc. along with practical matters such as charge structure within the original contract.

• The danger that a client may believe he or she has 24-hour accessibility to the therapist.

• The potential for a lack of time for reflection on either party before responding to each other.

• Awareness of potential professional and personal overlap by the careful and restrained use of social media such as Twitter, Facebook etc.

Regarding Complaint 2:

Delivering a Service

All Practitioners undertake to:

3. Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to:

a. Cross the boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship.

5. Should any relationship (i.e. any enduring personal or professional connection other than the clinical relationship between client and therapist) occur or develop between either counsellor and client……….the therapist should consult their supervisor at the earliest opportunity.

Assessment Panel Decision

The Assessment Panel stated that the Registrant’s conduct during and after her work with Complainant 1 and her apparent lack of insight or concern about its potential consequences,  suggests that the Registrant poses a serious risk to the public and to the profession. They also considered that Complaint 2 suggests that there may be a pattern of behaviour on her part where the maintenance of appropriate boundaries with clients is concerned.

The Assessment Panel found that there were serious and substantive breaches of the Code of Ethics such that the Registrant could be removed for the Society’s Accredited Register. The Assessment Panel decided that the case would be referred to the Independent Complaints Panel. The Assessment Panel also offered Alison Hill the option of agreeing to Voluntary Removal from the Register thus saving the emotional stress of a hearing for both parties whilst still providing protection to the public.

Alison Hill admitted to the Breaches of the Code of Ethics as set out by the Assessment Panel Findings and has agreed to be removed from the NCS Accredited Register.

NCS19-08489

Outcome: Voluntary Removal from Register 19th April 2021

Outline of complaint

The complaint focussed on a planned therapeutic session whereby Matt Coe changed the nature of the therapeutic session to the detriment of his client. The complaint also focussed on the communications between Matt Coe and his then client following the session.

Assessment Panel Findings

The Assessment Panel found that Matt Coe had committed the following breaches of the NCS Code of Ethics.

Delivering a Service section, paragraph 3 “Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to:

1. Cross the boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship.”

Delivering a Service section, paragraph 1. “Work in ways that promote client autonomy and well-being and that maintain respect and dignity for the client”.

Delivering a Service section, paragraph 7 “Remain aware of their own limitations and wherever appropriate, be prepared to refer a client to another practitioner or medical adviser who might be expected to offer suitable treatment.”

Fundamental Principle 3. “Respect for the dignity and rights of the client (Autonomy)”

Fundamental Principle 2. Being trustworthy and responsible…..which requires registrants to “ act in a respectful, professional and ethical manner when representing their profession”.

Fundamental Principle 1 “Working towards the good of clients and doing no harm (Beneficence and Non-maleficence) Practitioners hold the welfare of clients central to their work and so commit to avoiding harm”.

Assessment Panel Decision

The Assessment Panel found that there may have been serious and substantive breaches of the Code of Ethics such that the registrant could be removed from the Society’s Accredited Register. The Assessment Panel decided that the case would be referred to the Independent Complaints Panel. The Assessment Panel also offered Matt Coe the option of agreeing to Voluntary Removal from Register thus saving the emotional stress of a hearing for both parties whilst still providing protection to the public.

Matt Coe admitted to the Breaches of the Code of Ethics as set out by the Assessment Panel Findings and has agreed to be Removed from the NCS Accredited Register.

NCS13-00234

Assessment Panel: December 2019

Outcome: non-compliance with Conditional Membership sanctions

Outline of complaint:

The complainant and registrant met through an online dating service. The complainant, the complainant’s family and ex-partner all were offered individual therapy services by the registrant.

The panel considered extracts from single source social media messages between the complainant and registrant. These contained detail of private and social matters as well as professional therapy arrangements.

It was noted that the therapy service itself was viewed favourably by parties to the complaint and that the registrant offers a wide range of therapeutic services. Cleansing Therapy was referred to by the panel as an additional service, appearing to be a physical rather than a therapeutic therapy.

Overview

In line with the 2018 NCS Code of Ethics and in accordance with the Society’s Complaints Procedures, the NCS Public Protection Officer referred the complaint to the complaint Assessment Panel to consider:

• If the registrant had behaved in a manner which was in line with NCS requirements around Professional boundaries, conduct, communication and confidentiality.
• If the registrant had complied with NCS supervision requirements.

Assessment Panel

Decision: Conditional Membership Sanctions

The Panel outcome statement contains considered, collective concerns, with particular emphasis on the written statements received from the registrant in response to the complaint. Outcome decision includes an immediate action order with regard to supervision (no client work to be undertaken prior to this being in place) and learning and development conditions of membership to address professional conduct and self-awareness.

Self-Awareness

The Panel found that the registrant had displayed limited self-awareness around professional boundaries, dual relationships and the importance of having professional supervision in place.

Professional Boundaries/Dual relationships

The registrant stated in correspondence “I would like it noted please that X was not just a client. We had been on dates prior to me offering .. therapy and had become good friends before any therapy took place. This wasn’t a usual client/therapy relationship. I helped out as a friend.”

Affectionate and emotive language was used throughout messaging evidence, with no clear professional boundary between personal and business communication.

Contrary to the following NCS Code of Ethics:

Fundamental principles:

Being trustworthy and responsible (Fidelity)

Practitioners endeavour to establish trust with their clients and the community in which they work. Therefore, practitioners not only honour the trust placed in them by their clients and the community but also act in a respectful, professional and ethical manner when representing their profession

Delivering a Service

All Practitioners undertake to:

• (1) Work in ways that promote client autonomy and well-being and that maintain respect and dignity for the client.
  
• (3) Refrain from using their position of trust and confidence to: Cross the boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship. This includes but is not limited to having sexual relationships with or behaving sexually towards clients, supervisees or trainees; maintaining the confidentiality of counselling as far as the law allows; or by exploiting them emotionally, financially or in any other way whatsoever.
  
• (4) Decline with explanation, inappropriate gifts, gratuities or favours from a client. Examples include, but are not limited to financial gifts, event or discount vouchers, objects of substantial monetary value. The offering of any gift in therapy is an important event in the therapist-client relationship, and its implications should be discussed with the client and considered in supervision.
  
• (5) Should any relationship (i.e. any enduring personal or professional connection other than the clinical relationship between client and therapist) occur or develop between either counsellor and client, or members of their respective immediate families, the therapist should consult their supervisor at the earliest opportunity. It is likely to be appropriate to cease accepting fees, work towards terminating the counselling relationship in an appropriate manner and arranging a carefully considered referral to another suitable therapist at the earliest opportunity.
  
• (7) Remain aware of their own limitations and wherever appropriate, be prepared to refer a client to another practitioner or medical adviser who might be expected to offer suitable treatment.

General Conduct

All Practitioners undertake to:

• (1) Conduct themselves at all times in accord with their professional status and in such a way as neither undermines public confidence in the process or profession of counselling, nor brings it into disrepute, being aware of professional and personal boundaries.

Confidentiality

The registrant discussed clients with clients (in writing). In the Panels view this offers a lack of awareness with regards to the essential requirement of client confidentiality.

Contrary to:

Confidentiality, Maintenance of Records and Recording of Sessions

All Practitioners undertake to:

(1) Maintain strict confidentiality within the client/counsellor relationship, always provided that such confidentiality is neither inconsistent with the therapist’s own safety or the safety of the client, the client’s family members or other members of the public, nor in contravention of any legal action (i.e. criminal, coroner or civil court cases where a court order is made demanding disclosure) or legal requirement

General Conduct

All Practitioners undertake to:

• (5) Ensure that they maintain the highest level of communication with clients (avoiding abbreviation and shorthand) whether by telephone; email; text or any other social media messaging service (Facebook; WhatsApp). See (Appendix C)

Appendix C: Communications and Social Media

Before providing counselling or advice/suggestions via any online platform/text messaging/email the practitioner should have considerations in place to deal with the following:

• The danger that a client may believe he or she has 24-hour accessibility to the therapist.
• The potential for a lack of time for reflection on either party before responding to each other.
• Awareness of potential professional and personal overlap by the careful and restrained use of social media such as Twitter, Facebook etc.
• When using Facebook or other social media platforms, personal accounts must be kept private from public viewing by making use of privacy levels according to the specific social media platform. Additional and separate user accounts for professional purposes and use, should be used.

Supervision

The registrant provided no evidence to the NCS about her Supervision, despite repeated requests having been made.

In the view of the Panel a qualified supervisor would likely have ‘nipped in the bud’ all of the concerns noted.

The panel considered the registrant’s statement “I have not taken this to Supervision as yet, however I have spoken to my peers in my peer support group. These peers are highly qualified, successful and professional therapists….”

(It is noted that this arrangement is not accepted as adequate supervision under the NCS Code of Ethics).

Contrary to:

supervision, all practitioners undertake to:

• (1) Have formal one to one supervision in place and obtained from a properly qualified and trained supervisor. Attendance should be commensurate with practice hours.
  
• (2) Ensure that clients with presenting issues outside of a practitioner's scope of ability, are discussed in supervision and where appropriate referred to another practitioner.

• (3) Ensure a written contract is provided from the supervisor.

• (5) Not engage in any dual relationship when seeking supervision. Examples of dual relationship can be found in the members area of the website.

Contrary to: Society Terms and Conditions of Membership:

Conditions of Registration:

• · “I have supervision appropriate to the amount of clients that I am seeing”
• “I monitor my safety to practice at a level that enables me to provide an effective service and seek advice from my supervisor if there are any health or personal circumstances which could impair my effectiveness”

Contrary to: Society Membership guidance:

…It is important that the Supervisor is properly qualified.

Peer and group supervision is acceptable, in addition to formal one-to-one supervision (not in place of), and is dependent upon your own level of experience and the client group you are working with…

DECISION: Fitness to practise sanctions

The registrant must provide evidence of the following:

Supervision:

• · Registrant to immediately engage a suitably qualified and experienced Supervisor and must not see clients until this is in place. To notify NCS once a contract has been agreed.
• · The Supervisor must provide a comprehensive fitness to practise report to the NCS after 12 months of working with the registrant.

Reflective Report:

• Registrant to produce a Reflective Report. This should be received by the NCS on a date that falls after 3 months and prior to 9 months from receipt of the Panel’s decision.

1. The report must be over 2000 words.
2. It should demonstrate understanding of the following: Professional Boundaries, Dual Relationships, why Supervision is essential and learning through supervision (upon having explored this complaint outcome with a new supervisor).

CPD:

• Registrant to complete the NCS Code of Ethics CPD within 3 months of receipt of this outcome.
• Registrant to complete a CPD training on the topic of professional boundaries, within 6 months of receipt of this outcome

Personal Therapy:

• Registrant to attend a minimum of 6x sessions of Personal Therapy to explore her awareness and wellbeing in relation to the compliant. Personal learning and insight gained should be included in the reflective report.

OUTCOME

Upon receipt of the Panel Outcome report, the registrant contacted the NCS to resign her membership and declared a refusal to engage in further contact with the Society. As an immediate action Sanction had been ordered by the Panel, the Registrant was therefore not compliant with conditions of membership.

The Society’s complaints procedures seek to be open, transparent and proportionate. Sanctions issued by either the Assessment Panel or by the Independent Complaints Panel following a complaints hearing will be published on the Society’s website.

Should a Registrant be issued an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) during a complaint investigation the ISO will appear as an annotation on the Registrant’s Public Register entry. In addition, their name and date of issue of ISO will be placed on the Professional Conduct Notices section of the Society’s website.

The publication of such decisions provides information about the standards expected of Registrants; assists clients to make informed choices and helps to maintain public confidence in the Accredited Register programme.

We aim to strike a balance and consider the rights of both clients and Registrants and take account of the risk of any harm that may arise from the disclosure or non-disclosure of information.

Details of sanctions will appear as an annotation to a Registrant’s online register entry. In addition, an outline of the case will be placed on the website's ‘Professional Conduct Notices’ section. A note of the complaint will be added to the member’s file.

Upon sanction completion, the Society will change the online register entry to reflect that the sanction has been met. The Society will display the “Sanction Met” annotation and the outline of the case under the Outcome of Complaints section for a further period of 6 months after completion of the sanction. The Registrant’s file will be updated.

If a sanction is not met, the Society will change the online register entry to “Sanction Not Met” and information on the Professional Conduct Notices page will be published on the Society website for a period of five years.

In cases where a Registrant is removed from the Register, or accepts Voluntary Removal following a panel hearing, the published decision will remain on the website for a period of five years.

If there is no sanction, then no information will be published on the Society’s website.

The Society’s complaints procedures seek to be open, transparent and proportionate. Sanctions issued by either the Assessment Panel or by the Independent Complaints Panel following a complaints hearing will be published on the Society’s website.

Should a member be issued an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) during a complaint investigation the ISO the Non-Registrant member 's name and date of issue of ISO will be placed on the Professional Conduct Notices section of the Society’s website.

The publication of such decisions provides information about the standards expected of members; assists clients to make informed choices and helps to maintain public confidence in The Society.

We aim to strike a balance and consider the rights of both clients and members and take account of the risk of any harm that may arise from the disclosure or non-disclosure of information.

Details of sanctions will appear as an outline of the case and will be placed on the ‘Professional Conduct Notices’ section of the website. A note of the complaint will be added to the member’s file.

Upon completion of the sanction, the Society will change the entry on the Professional Conduct Notice page to reflect that the sanction has been met. The Society will display the “Sanction Met” on the outline of the case under the Outcomes of Complaints section for a further period of 6 months after completion of the sanction. The members’ file will be updated.

If a sanction is not met, the Society will change the information on the Professional Conduct Notices page to reflect that “Sanction Not Met”. This will be published on the Society website for a period of five years.

In cases where a member is removed from the Society membership or accepts Voluntary Removal following a panel hearing, the published decision will remain on the website for a period of five years.

If there is no sanction, then no information will be published on the Society’s website.