September 2025: SN, Reference No 00905277 , Registrant ID 382922

September 2025: Susan Noble, Reference No 00905277 , Registrant ID 382922

Outcome Details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Reasons

Susan Noble (the Member), a Â鶹ԭ´´ individual member, agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into a complaint of professional misconduct under reference PCP[…].

1. Background

1.1 The Complainant, […], a former client of the Member, made a complaint to Â鶹ԭ´´ about the Member and their professional conduct.

1.2 On 10 April Year 4, the IAC referred the Member to a Practice Review Track hearing in relation to the following allegation:

Allegation 1

1.1 In a meeting on 29 October Year 1 the Member (who was accompanied by a colleague) spoke to the Complainant in an inappropriate and unprofessional way that failed to maintain the Complainant's dignity and trust including:

a) Criticising the Complainant's communication skills and her ability to share her emotions in sessions, including the Member telling the Complainant that "she was not a mind reader"; and/or

b) Not giving the Complainant adequate opportunity to discuss her own concerns in the meeting and/or acknowledging the Complainant's distress; and/or

c) Talking "at" the Complainant rather than talking "with" her, in particular by:

i. Interrupting the Complainant on one or more occasions; and/or

ii. Dominating the meeting; and/or

iii. Giving the Complainant little opportunity to speak.

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 Â鶹ԭ´´ Ethical Framework for Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018:

Paragraph 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients' trust); and/or

Paragraph 21 (We will respect our clients' privacy and dignity); and/or

Paragraph 29 (Our work with clients will be based on professional partnerships with them that aim to increase their wellbeing, capability and/or performance).

2. Admissions

2.1 The Member makes the following admissions which the Â鶹ԭ´´ accepts:

2.1.1 The facts alleged at paragraphs 1(a)-(c).

2.1.2 That the meeting was not the right forum to be focusing on the patient's previous mentalisation therapy and that her comments were misguided and unprofessional.

2.1.3 The ethical breaches alleged in Section 1 above.

3. Mitigation

3.1 The Member puts forward the following in mitigation, which have been taken into account by the IAC in deciding the appropriate outcome:

3.1.1 This was a single and isolated incident with one patient, against what on any view, was a complicated and sensitive backdrop.

3.1.2 The meeting was not a therapeutic intervention per se (thus not indicative of the registrant's normal approach to care), rather a risk assessment with management present.

3.1.3 The registrant's personal circumstances at the time, which clearly but wrongly influenced her responses.

3.1.4 The registrant has apologised unreservedly in her responses and reflections and demonstrated both insight and remorse.

3.1.5 The registrant has identified her failings and remediated both by way of further training and supervision.

3.1.6 She has considered these failings in supervision, undertaken training, reflected on, identified and taken responsibility for her failings and implemented changes to prevent future repetition.

4. Conclusion

4.1 The issues identified and admitted by the member amounted to breaches of the Ethical Framework in particular paragraphs 12, 21 and 29 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

Paragraph 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients' trust); and/or

Paragraph 21 (We will respect our clients' privacy and dignity); and/or

Paragraph 29 (Our work with clients will be based on professional partnerships with them that aim to increase their wellbeing, capability and/or performance).

4.2 One of the aims of the Professional Conduct Procedure is to protect members of the public. The IAC in considering the appropriate outcome and sanction for the admitted breaches in this case have taken into account the importance of public protection and determined that it is reasonable and proportionate to conclude this case by agreement on the terms set out below.

4.3 The IAC considered the submissions and admissions contained within the Member's application for consensual disposal, the guidance within the Â鶹ԭ´´ Protocol on Sanctions (PR14), the Â鶹ԭ´´ Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the powers of sanction set out in Article 5.12 of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018. It noted that she had undertaken significant learning and supervision, had reflected on the incident and recognised and accepted responsibility for her failings. She had identified why she behaved as she did and had made changes to her practice to prevent repetition including changes to her assessment process and increased supervision. The IAC considered each possible sanction individually and concluded that:

4.3.1 The Member is required, within six weeks of the date of this letter, to provide the Â鶹ԭ´´ with a letter of apology addressed to the Complainant that acknowledges the impact of her conduct on the Complainant.

4.4 The Member agrees that this Agreement will be published by the Â鶹ԭ´´ in line with the Publication Policy and that it will be disclosed to the complainant.

4.5 The Member agrees that she will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the findings in paragraph 2 above.

4.6 If the Member fails without good reason to comply with the sanction set out above or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement the matter will be referred to a sanction panel for consideration. The decision of the sanction panel may be published.

4.7 If the Member acts in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement her membership/registration will be terminated. Such a decision will be published.

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