糖心官网

April 2026: AH, Membership Number 00927569, Registrant ID 379405

Attendees

1. The Member Anna Humphries attended and was not represented.

2. The Complainant [鈥�] attended and was supported by [鈥�], Professional Supporter.

Introduction

3. This is a Practice Review Process Hearing held under Section 5 of 糖心官网's Professional Conduct Procedure.

Background

4. On 20 September [Year 1] [鈥�] complained to 糖心官网 about Anna Humphries whom he saw for therapy from 2 May to 5 September [Year 1]. There was no written contract in place between the parties.

5. The Complainant states that when they started therapy, he was undecided how long he wanted it to continue and they agreed a flexible approach. They had a break in August and on his return in September, he planned to end therapy as he felt that life had improved. When he told the Member, she challenged his decision to end therapy and repeatedly asked him to clarify, which he found confrontational.

6. The Complainant states that the Member said 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here to fire me鈥� and 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here to [鈥�], which he found violent, aggressive and accusatory. She suggested that they should have four further sessions which he considered excessive as they had only had ten sessions in total. He initially agreed to one further session.

7. He subsequently advised the Member that he did not wish to return and she replied saying 鈥淚 wish you all the best and would be happy to hear from you should you ever wish to contact me in the future鈥�. The Complainant considered her conduct to be manipulative and insensitive to his needs.

Preliminary Matters

8. There were no preliminary issues before the Panel.

The Allegations

The Allegations made against the Member are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 At a session on 5 September [Year 1], the Member inappropriately challenged the Complainant鈥檚 decision to end therapy by:
a. Questioning his reasons for ending therapy on a number of occasions; and/or
b. Recommending that he attend four further sessions, against his wishes; and/or
c. Stating 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here to fire me鈥� and/or 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here [鈥�] or words to that effect.

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 Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 7 (We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together) and/or 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients鈥� trust).

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member failed to contract clearly with the Complainant and/or provide him with a record of the terms agreed:

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 Good Practice in the 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鈥檚 expressed needs and choices so far as possible; and/or

b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context; and/or

d. providing the client with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed; and/or

e. keeping a record of what has been agreed and of any changes or clarifications when they occur.

Admissions

9. Following the reading of the allegations the Chair asked the Member whether she admitted any of the allegations.

10. The Member informed the Panel that she did not admit any of the allegations.

Evidence

Complainant鈥檚 Evidence

11. The Complainant gave evidence. He stated in summary that:

12. At the beginning of therapy, they discussed contractual terms regarding sessions but did not agree a notice period as he advised her that he could not commit to counselling long term and wanted flexibility; the Member agreed to this. He was not provided with a written contract, nor was he signposted to a website where he could see the Member鈥檚 terms in writing.

13. At the session on 5 September [Year 1], he told the Member that he wanted to end therapy as he felt that life had improved. He said that he explained at length the reasons for his decision, but the Member continued to challenge him repeatedly. He said that he found her behaviour combative and confrontational and the session became uncomfortable and hostile.

14. He said that the Member recommended that they have four more sessions which he considered to be wholly unnecessary. He said that he initially agreed to one further session but subsequently decided not to proceed with this as he no longer felt safe with the Member.

15. He told the Panel that the Member told him 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here to fire me鈥� and 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here [鈥�], which he found particularly inappropriate as his experience of violence was one of the issues that he had brought to therapy. The Complainant said that he was so shocked that he made notes of what had happened immediately after he left the session. The Complainant added that he found the session a traumatic experience and he barely slept in the following days.

Member鈥檚 Evidence

16. The Member also gave evidence. She stated in summary that:

17. She had verbally contracted with the Complainant at their second session and that they had discussed the terms of sessions, cancellations, breaks and endings. She said that they did not discuss confidentiality as she did not consider it necessary and was not her usual practice, unless a client asked about it. She said that it was not her policy at the time to provide clients with a written contract although she now does so.

18. The Member said that at the session on 5 September [Year 1], the Complainant told her that he wanted to end therapy in order to have more time for himself. She said that she thought it was therapeutically appropriate to explore his reasons for ending therapy, but she accepted that her technique was wrong and that the session became awkward and uncomfortable.

19. She said that she discussed the matter in supervision that week but did not make notes of the therapy session or the supervision session.

20. In relation to the specific allegations, the Member responded as follows:

21. She acknowledged that she had questioned the Complainant鈥檚 reasons for ending therapy on a number of occasions in the session but considered this to be therapeutically justified and did not believe that it was inappropriate.

22. She agreed that she recommended four further sessions as this was her usual policy to work towards an effective ending with a client. She believed that this was a professionally responsible approach and would be helpful for the Complainant. She did not accept that she recommended sessions against his wishes.

23. She acknowledged that she had suggested that the Complainant intended to 鈥渇ire her鈥� and said that she used the phrase as they had previously had discussions regarding people being fired at work. She denied having said 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here [鈥�] but said that she had suggested that the Complainant wanted to [鈥�].

24. The Member said that she had contracted with the Complainant at their second session but accepted that she had not provided him with a written record of the contractual terms agreed. She believed that she had been clear in her verbal contracting.

25. The Member said she was sorry about the impact of the session on the Complainant and has since reflected on how she could have managed the situation better. She did not accept that she had allowed her personal feelings to affect her judgement in the session but acknowledged that she did not successfully support the Complainant in the session.

Documentary Evidence

26. The Panel had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included:

a. The Complainant鈥檚 original referral to the Association;
b. The Member鈥檚 initial response;
c. Further response from the Member in relation to the allegations.
d. Email correspondence between the parties and the Association.

Facts

The Panel鈥檚 Approach to Facts

27. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel has borne in mind that findings should be made on the balance of probabilities, or whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred.

Findings

Allegation 1.1a 鈥� PROVED

28. The Panel noted that the Member acknowledged that in the session of 5 September she had questioned the Complainant鈥檚 reasons for ending therapy on a number of occasions, but she did not accept that this was inappropriate. The Panel accepted that it had initially been therapeutically justified for the Member to explore the Complainant鈥檚 reasons for ending therapy. However, the Panel found that when it became clear that the Complainant did not wish to discuss it further, and the discussion became uncomfortable, the Member鈥檚 continued questioning was inappropriate. It therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1.1b 鈥� Not proved

29. The Panel noted that the Member accepted that she recommended four further sessions, in accordance with her usual policy, as she recognised the importance of working towards a safe and effective ending. It noted also that the Complainant did not want to attend four further sessions. However, the Panel did not find that the Member pressurised the Complainant into attending further sessions and it is clear that no further sessions took place. The Panel did not find therefore that the Member had acted inappropriately in recommending four further sessions. It therefore found this allegation not proved.

Allegation 1.1c - Proved

30. The Panel noted that the Member accepted having commented that the Complainant had come to 鈥渇ire her鈥� and acknowledged that this comment was clumsy. She denied having said 鈥淚 think you wanted to come in here [鈥�] and said that she had commented that the Complainant wanted to [鈥�]. The Panel found the Complainant鈥檚 evidence to be more credible as he said in evidence that he wrote down the Member鈥檚 comments as soon as he left the session as he found them so shocking. The Member told the Panel that she had made no notes of the session or of her subsequent discussion with her Supervisor. The Panel found therefore on the balance of probabilities that the Member had made the comments cited, or similar words and that those words were inappropriately challenging. It therefore found this allegation proved.
Allegation 1.2 鈥� Proved (in respect of 1.1a and 1.1c)

31. Having found Allegation 1.1 a and c proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the conduct found proved amounted to a breach of Paragraphs 7 and 12 of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework as alleged.

32. Having found that the Member had inappropriately persisted in questioning the Complainant on his reasons for ending therapy, when it was clear that he had made the decision and did not wish to discuss the matter further, the Panel concluded that the Member had not made the client the primary focus of her attention during the session and had failed to comply with Paragraph 7. The Panel concluded also, having heard the Complainant鈥檚 evidence on the impact of her questioning, that she had not developed or protected her client鈥檚 trust and had therefore failed to comply with Paragraph 12. It therefore found Allegation 1.2 proved in respect of Allegation 1.1a.

33. The Panel found that the comments made by the Member in Allegation 1.1c suggested that she was considering the impact of the therapeutic ending on herself rather than on the client. The Panel concluded therefore that the Member had not made the client the primary focus of her attention during the session and had failed to comply with Paragraph 7. The Panel concluded also, having heard the Complainant鈥檚 evidence on the impact of her comments on him, that she had not developed or protected her client鈥檚 trust and had therefore failed to comply with Paragraph 12. It therefore found Allegation 1.2 proved in respect of Allegation 1.1c.
34. The Panel therefore found Allegation 1.2 proved in respect of Allegations 1.1a and c.

Allegation 2.1 鈥� Proved

35. The Panel noted that the Member accepted that she had not provided the Complainant with a written contract or a record of the terms agreed and the allegation was therefore factually admitted on that basis. However, the Panel noted also that the Complainant was unclear or could not recall details of the terms agreed, the Member acknowledged that the terms agreed were said to be flexible, and that the verbal contract did not cover issues such as confidentiality and when that may be overridden. The Panel found therefore on the balance of probabilities that the Member had failed to contract clearly with the Complainant and had also failed to provide him with a record of the terms agreed. It therefore found this allegation proved.

Allegation 2.2 - Proved in part

36. Having found Allegation 2.1 proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the conduct found proved amounted to a breach of Paragraph 31 a, b, d and e of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework as alleged.

37. The Panel noted that the parties had agreed a flexible approach to the initial contract terms, due to the Complainant being unsure at the outset how long he wanted therapy to continue. It accepted that the Member had demonstrated a willingness to take account of the Complainant鈥檚 needs and choices. The Panel did not find therefore that she had failed to comply with Paragraph 31a.

38. The Panel noted that the Complainant in his evidence was unclear on the contract terms agreed and did not recall details what had been covered in the discussion. The Panel found that discussing contractual arrangements with a client on a single occasion at the beginning of a therapeutic relationship, with no further discussion or written confirmation, did not amount to communicating terms and conditions in a way easily understood by the client. It found therefore that the Member had failed to comply with Paragraph 31b.

39. The Member in her evidence accepted that she had not provided the Complainant with a written contract. The Complainant also stated in evidence that the Member had not signposted him to a website or other form of written record of the agreement. The Panel found therefore that the Member had not provided the client with a record or easy access to a record of what had been agreed. It found that she had failed to comply with Paragraph 31d.

40. The Member in her evidence stated that she had made notes of the session on 9 May when contractual terms were discussed, although those notes were not before the Panel. In her written response, the Member said only that her notes recorded 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 till the last 10/15 minutes till I contracted [..]. He raised no objections to my terms.鈥� The Panel therefore had no evidence to suggest that the Member had kept a record of what had been agreed and it found that the Member had failed to comply with Paragraph 31 e.

Decision

41. The Panel concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the following paragraphs of Good Practice in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: Paragraphs 7, 12, 31 b, d and e.

Sanction

42. The decision as to the appropriate sanction to impose, if any, is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgment. In reaching its decision, the Panel has had regard to the Member's written evidence and submissions and has taken account of Protocol 14 of the PCP and the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

43. Paragraph 5.12 of the PCP states that the Panel may impose one or more of the following sanctions where a case is allocated to the Practice Review Process and one or more of the allegations is found proved:

i. A requirement to send a written apology to a relevant recipient of therapeutic services provided by the Member [whether or not that recipient is the Complainant] by a specific date;

ii. A requirement to demonstrate specific change/improvement in practice by a specific date;

iii. A requirement to undertake specific training by a specific date;

44. Protocol 14 of the PCP states that in deciding whether a sanction is appropriate and proportionate, the Panel will decide which factors to consider and how much weight to attach to them. The Panel noted that the Member had apologised for the behaviour which led to the complaint and demonstrated some insight. However, it was not satisfied that the steps she had taken addressed the deficiencies identified.

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

46. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Member鈥檚 interests with the public interest.

47. The Panel took into consideration the Member鈥檚 original and further sanction submissions. Having done so, it concluded that no sanction would be inappropriate and that it was necessary and proportionate to impose a requirement for the Member to undergo specific training on maintaining client autonomy and clients鈥� trust and keeping the client as her focus during their work, to demonstrate improvement in practice and to apologise to the Complainant.

48. The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to provide the 糖心官网 with the following within 6 weeks of the date of this letter:

1. Evidence of the completion of 6 hours of CPD relating to maintaining client autonomy and clients鈥� trust and keeping the client as her focus during their work.

2. After completing the CPD, writing a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member鈥檚 practice that:

a. reflects on what went wrong in this case, gives insight into what happened and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;

b. recognises the impact of her conduct on the Complainant and the reputation of the counselling professions;

c. details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.

3. A letter of apology addressed to the Complainant that acknowledges what went wrong and the impact on the Complainant.

4. Confirmation that she has discussed the above with her supervisor.

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

听