Professional Conduct notice / EC

October 2025: Emma Chumley, Reference No 00966441 , Registrant ID 393355

The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of 摆鈥 met on 16 May Year 5 remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the complaint made by 摆鈥(Complainant) against Emma Chumley (Member), a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (麻豆原创) individual member.

In attendance were 摆鈥 (Clerk鈥檚 Assistant) and 摆鈥 (Clerk to the Panel).

The Complainant was not in attendance and was not represented. The Member was presented and not represented.

Summary

The Complainant has complained about Emma Chumley, a 麻豆原创 Individual Member.

The Member was employed as a counsellor by 摆鈥. Her main responsibility was to provide counselling to students, but she also provided counselling to the Complainant who was a member of staff in the school鈥檚摆鈥. The therapeutic relationship took place from May Year 1 to May Year 2. The Complainant made a number of complaints, including that the Member did not provide her with a written contract and that the Member had sent a letter regarding her 摆鈥 to her GP surgery from a school email address which was not secure.

The Complainant was not in attendance at the hearing, having previously advised that she did not wish to participate. On 12 March Year 5 the Panel considered the matter under Paragraph 5.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure and decided that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Complainant.

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member did not provide a record of the contract between her and the Complainant.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 31 d. of 鈥楪ood Practice 鈥檌n the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states

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:

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

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member used the school鈥檚 system to send a letter about the Complainant to the Complainant鈥檚 GP.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraph 55 a. of 鈥楪ood Practice 鈥檌n the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which states

55: We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:

a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure

Preliminary matters

At the outset of the hearing the Panel proposed an amendment to Allegation 1.1, to remove the word 鈥渢herapeutic鈥� from the Allegation. It considered that this would more accurately reflect the complaint, which related to the lack of a contract setting out the terms of the counselling relationship, rather than a contract addressing the client鈥檚 therapeutic goals. It noted also that the response from the Member appeared to relate to the provision of an administrative contract and that she was therefore clear on what was being alleged.

The Member was invited to make representations on the amendment; having had the opportunity to consider the matter, she confirmed that she had no objection to the proposed amendment. Allegation 1.1 was therefore amended to remove the word 鈥渢herapeutic鈥�.

Documents and evidence before the Panel

The Panel was provided with the following written materials:

鈥� The original complaint and Member鈥檚 response as provided to the Investigation and Assessment Committee
鈥� The Allegations being considered
鈥� The formal response submitted by the Member Complained Against
鈥� The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
鈥� The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel read all of the above, then questioned, and listened to the oral evidence provided by the Member.

The Panel had to consider the following:

鈥� The allegations made.
鈥� The written and oral evidence.
鈥� What weight should be attached to the evidence.
鈥� On balance, whether the Allegations should be upheld.

Member鈥檚 oral evidence

The Member gave evidence to the Panel in her statements and in answer to questions from the Panel. She stated that at the time of these events, she was employed for one day a week as a school counsellor at 摆鈥. Although her primary responsibility was to provide counselling services to students, she was asked by the 摆鈥 to provide counselling to the Complainant who was a member of staff in the school鈥檚摆鈥. She told the Panel that she was not employed specifically as a 麻豆原创 counsellor and was the only member of the counselling team who was a 麻豆原创 member.

The Member stated that it was not the school鈥檚 policy to issue written counselling contracts. She said that she contracted verbally with the Complainant at the start of the relationship and added that the Complainant could have requested a written copy of the contract if she had wanted one.

The Member told the Panel that at a session on 22 May Year 2, the Complainant asked her to draft a letter to the Complainant鈥檚摆鈥, as she had an appointment with her. As the appointment was imminent, the Complainant asked the Member to hand deliver the letter to the GP surgery, which she did. She also sent a copy of the letter to the Complainant by email. Following the appointment, the Member stated that the Complainant sent an email to her at both her school and private email address, copied to the 摆鈥 and the 摆鈥, providing details of what had happened at her 摆鈥 appointment.

The Member told the Panel that the Complainant regularly followed her both inside and outside school, swore at her and threw a diary at her. She said that although she discussed matters with her supervisor, she now realises that she should have sought advice from 麻豆原创 on the situation. She told the Panel that she believes she was na茂ve at the time and has learned lessons from this matter.

The Member said that following these events, she no longer provided counselling to school staff, but continued to counsel students, who were all provided with contracts. She provides a written contract to her private clients.

Findings

On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:

Allegation 1

Allegation 1.1

The Member accepted that she had not provided the Complainant with a record of the contract between her and the Complainant. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved as a matter of fact.

Allegation 1.2

The Panel considered whether the Member鈥檚 failure to provide the Complainant with a written record of the contract amounted to a breach of Paragraph 31d as alleged. It noted the Member鈥檚 explanation that it was not the school鈥檚 policy to issue a written contract, that she had not been employed specifically as a 麻豆原创 counsellor and that the Complainant could have requested a copy if she had wanted one. The Panel found however that as a Member of 麻豆原创, the Member had a duty under the Ethical Framework to provide a written record of the agreed terms, regardless of the school鈥檚 policies. It found also that it was not the responsibility of the Complainant to request a written record.

The Panel therefore found that the Member had acted in breach of paragraph 31 d. of 鈥楪ood Practice 鈥檌n the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Allegation 1 was therefore found proved.

Allegation 2

Allegation 2.1

The Panel heard evidence from the Member that she had hand delivered the letter requested by the Complainant to the GP surgery and had sent a copy of the letter to the Complainant by email. Although the Member had stated in her letter to 麻豆原创 dated 16 January year 5 that she believed the school email system to be a secure way to send a letter to an external agency, she told the Panel that after writing this, she recalled that she had in fact delivered the letter by hand. This was supported by the email of 24 May Year 2 to the Complainant, attaching a copy of a letter to the surgery dated 23 May, which bore a postal address only. There was no evidence to suggest that the letter, which was in any event addressed to the Complainant鈥檚摆鈥 and not to her GP as alleged, had been emailed to the surgery. The Panel therefore found the allegation that she used the school鈥檚 system to send a letter about the Complainant to the Complainant鈥檚 GP not proved.

Allegation 2.2

Having found Allegation 2.1 not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider this Allegation.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel鈥檚 decision was that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraph 31d of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
摆鈥

听

Sanction Panel

The Panel reconvened on 8 September Year 5 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 麻豆原创 Protocol 14 Guidance on Sanctions. The Member had been invited to make submissions on sanction. She did not make specific representations on sanction but advised that she now provides clients with a written contract.
In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful of public protection and raising and maintaining standards of practice.

The Panel considered the following sanction was fair and proportionate, given the allegation upheld in this case:

Within 4 weeks of this decision, the Member should provide to 麻豆原创 a written explanation of how she ensures that she fulfils her obligations under Paragraph 31d of the Ethical Framework in all areas of her practice, to prevent a repetition of the matter found proved in this case.

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

听