October 2025: SO, Reference No 00918205 , Registrant ID 394396

October 2025: Spencer Orchard, Reference No 00918205 , Registrant ID 394396

The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of °Ú…] met on 8 April Year 3 remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the complaint made by °Ú…] (Complainant) against Spencer Orchard (Member), a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (Â鶹ԭ´´) individual member.

In attendance were °Ú…] (Clerks’ Assistant) and °Ú…] (Clerk to the Panel).
The Complainant was unaccompanied. The Member was self-represented and unaccompanied.

Summary

The Complainant has complained about Spencer Orchard, a Â鶹ԭ´´ Individual Member.

The summary of the complaint by the Investigation and Assessment Committee is as follows:

• The Complainant had four counselling sessions with the Member on 11 and 25 August Year 1 and 3 and 22 September Year 1.
• The Complainant has complained that, at the end of the first session, the Member's phone rang and he checked it but did not mention anything.
• The Complainant states that the Member quickly took on the demeanour of a mentor and seemed very interested in the Complainant's journey as a counsellor in training, offering lots of advice on things to consider during his studies.
• The Complainant alleges that the Member also offered to meet up for a chat outside the therapeutic setting by buying him coffee, saying he was often in the Complainant's local area. The Complainant sent him a text to ask him to let him know when he was in the area. The Member did not respond until a few days later and indicated that work commitments had held him up.
• During the following session the Complainant states that the Member began discussing another client with him. He said that she °Ú…] . She had °Ú…] and the Member had telephoned him and told him not to go near her again. The Member said that he had offered to adopt her. The Complainant states that he is aware of the Member's °Ú…].
• The Complainant reports that there was a camera device on the table of the room that the sessions took place in which appeared to be motion detected.
• The Complainant states that at the final session with him he arrived on time, as usual, and rang the doorbell. The Member answered looking dishevelled and confused, as though he had just woken up and was not expecting the Complainant. He told the Complainant that he was running over and asked if he wait for a couple of minutes.
• The Complainant states that halfway through that session, a woman appeared at the window of the room they were talking in, knocked, and waved. He states that the Member got up looking embarrassed and answered the door.

°Ú…]

Allegations

1.1 In offering to meet with the Complainant outside of the therapeutic setting on or around the 16 September Year 1, the Member failed to establish and maintain appropriate professional boundaries between himself 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 the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

33. We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:

a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.

b. any dual or multiple relationships will be avoided where the risks of harm to the client outweigh any benefits to the client.

2.1. In a counselling session between 25 August Year 1 and 22 September Year 1, the Member made inappropriate disclosures regarding another client including providing details of that client’s age, and/ or gender, and/or personal circumstances and/ or that the Member had wished to adopt her, and in doing so breached that client’s confidentiality.

2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:

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

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

g. using thoroughly anonymised information about clients where this provides a practical alternative to sharing identifiable information.

3.1. The Member failed to demonstrate that he had provided a contract to the Complainant at the start of their counselling relationship.

3.2. The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph 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’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

Documents and evidence before the Panel

The Panel was provided with the following written materials:

• The papers of the Investigation and Assessment Committee.
• The Allegations being considered.
• The formal response submitted by the Member Complained Against.
• Further information provided by the parties.
• The relevant Ethical Frameworks.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel read all of the above, then questioned, and listened to the verbal evidence provided by both parties.

The Panel had to consider the following:

• The allegations made.
• The written and verbal evidence.
• What weight should be attached to the evidence.
• On balance, whether the complaints should be upheld.

Preliminary matters

During the course of the hearing it became apparent that the Member believed he had submitted a blank example of his contract as evidence to the Â鶹ԭ´´. Â鶹ԭ´´ confirmed that this had not been received.

The Panel invited the Member to apply to submit the evidence as late evidence. It accepted his oral application, which the Complainant made no objection to.
The Panel accepted the Clerk’s advice that it is empowered by paragraph 4.9c of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Professional Conduct Procedure to consider such applications in accordance with the Â鶹ԭ´´ Protocol for late or new evidence (PR4). PR4 states that the Panel will consider:

• whether it would be in the interests of justice to admit the evidence; and,
• if the evidence is admitted, what directions are necessary to manage or mitigate any potential prejudice to the other party.

The Panel concluded that the evidence was directly relevant to the allegations (allegation 3 in particular) and was unlikely to cause prejudice to the Complainant if admitted now. It concluded that it was in the interests of justice to admit the evidence and allowed a copy of the Member’s contract to be admitted as evidence.

Findings

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

Allegation 1 – NOT UPHELD

Allegation 1.1 – Not Proved

The Panel noted the Complainant’s account in his complaint that the Member ‘offered to meet up for a chat outside the therapeutic setting by buying me coffee, saying he was often in my local area’ and in his oral testimony that the Member said words to the effect of, ‘even if you don’t want to see me, I’d still like to know how you’re going on’. It also noted that the Complainant could not remember the context within which these comments were made or the words the Member used, other than the offer to meet for a coffee was made by the Member more than once.

The Panel noted the Member’s acceptance that he may have offered to meet for a coffee, but that this was in the context of them meeting for walking therapy. The Member clearly denied that he was offering to go out for coffee with the Complainant as a friend. The Member explained that he had clients in the Complainant’s area, and he was willing to conduct therapy with the Complainant in a walking format when in the area to save the Complainant money. The Panel was satisfied that a walking format of therapy is accepted practise and would fall within the definition of a therapeutic setting.

The Panel found that the Complainant sent the electronic message on 15 September Year 1 inviting the Member for a ‘cuppa’ because he knew that the Member was seeing other clients locally and the Complainant understood the invitation to meet for coffee was a social invitation.

The Panel found from the late evidence that the Member’s contract did not contain details of the different locations/methodologies he offered. It also found from the Member’s oral communication during the hearing that the combination of his oral communication and inadequate detail in his written contract made miscommunication and ambiguity a real possibility.

The Panel reminded itself that the burden of proof lies with the Complainant. It concluded that the Complainant had not proved to the required standard that the Member offered to meet with the Complainant outside of the therapeutic setting.

Allegation 1.1 was, therefore, found not proved.

As a result of this finding the Panel was not required to consider allegation 1.2.

Allegation 2 – NOT UPHELD

Allegation 2.1 – Not Proved

The Member denied making the disclosures alleged. The Complainant gave very detailed evidence of how he felt as a result of the alleged disclosures and that the Member became visibly emotional. The Member accepted that he is open to, and sometimes does become emotional during sessions with clients, but denied he got emotional when making such a disclosure; indeed he denied using his own clients as examples in sessions with other clients, he relies on hypothetical examples instead.

The Complainant was unable to explain how the session came round to the Member making this disclosure and could not give the context in which the alleged disclosures were made.

The Panel found that, even if it accepted the Complainant’s account, the alleged disclosures did not include sufficient information to identify the person referred to and would therefore not amount to a breach of confidentiality. However, it concluded that the lack of context meant that the Complainant had not proved that the alleged disclosures were inappropriate to the required standard.

Allegation 2.1 was, therefore, found not proved.

As a result of this finding the Panel was not required to consider allegation 2.2.

Allegation 3 – UPHELD IN PART

Allegation 3.1 - Proved

The Panel noted the Complainant had been consistent from his initial complaint through to and during the hearing that he had not received a written contract. The Complainant accepted that the Member had discussed the frequency of their sessions, the cost and what the Complainant wanted to address in therapy. He did not specifically recall, but ‘assumed’ that the Member would have talked to him about confidentiality. The Panel accepted this evidence, finding the Complainant’s description of realising something was wrong when he was learning about contracting during his counselling course compelling.

The Member had no specific recollection of the first session with the Complainant but explained that his usual practise was to conduct a telephone assessment and then carry out contracting in the first face to face session, when he would give the client one copy of the contract and retain a signed copy. However, his policy at the time was to destroy records, including contracts, three months after the end of therapy. He was therefore unable to produce a copy of the Complainant’s contract, but he stated that the blank contract he provided had been given to every client, including the Complainant.

The Panel reviewed the Member’s contract. It found it contained a number of typographical errors, which would have come to light if it had been used for all the Member’s clients. It concluded that it was not used invariably. It concluded that the Member had not provided the Complainant with a written contract and had failed to demonstrate that he had.

Allegation 3.1 was, therefore, found proved.

Allegation 3.2 - Proved

The Panel went on to apply its findings in relation to allegation 3.1 to paragraph 31(a)-(e) of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

• Paragraph 31(a) – Not Proved.

The Panel found that the Member had conducted some degree of contracting orally in the first session and preceding telephone call with the Complainant and had taken the Complainant’s expressed needs by offering a reduced fee due to him being an °Ú…]. The Panel concluded that, while the Member’s contracting could be improved, he had not breached paragraph 31(a).

• Paragraph 31(b) – Proved.

For the above reasons, the Panel found that the Member did not provide the Complainant with a written contract. Given the Member’s evidence of his awareness of the cognitive effects of depression, relying predominantly on oral communication was not appropriate to the Complainant’s context.

• Paragraph 31(c) – Not Proved.

The Member’s evidence was that he addressed confidentiality orally. The Complainant ‘assumed’ the Member told him about confidentiality. The Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Member explained confidentiality to the Complainant.

• Paragraph 31(d) – Proved.

For the above reasons, the Panel found that the Member had neither provided the Complainant with a record or easy access to a record of what has been agreed.

• Paragraph 31(e) – Proved.

For the above reasons, the Panel found that the Member had not kept a record of what had been agreed with the Complainant and of any changes or clarifications when they occurred.

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel decided that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 31(b), 31(d) and 31(e) of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 19 May Year 3 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate. Due to the Panel’s Lay Member °Ú…] being unavailable, the Â鶹ԭ´´ Registrar had appointed a replacement Lay Panel Member °Ú…] under paragraph 4.1 of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel noted the Member’s submissions on sanction, including his emails and copy of an amended version of his contract.

The Panel reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within Â鶹ԭ´´ Protocol on Sanctions (PR14) and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.

The Panel considered whether the former Member’s previous responses contained any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Panel agreed that, while admitting some degree of failing in relation to maintaining professional boundaries, the Member had not shown insight into the fundamental issue of inadequate contracting and that adequate and appropriate contracting sets the foundations for professional boundaries.

Given this lack of insight and the fact that, even as amended, the Member’s contract remained inadequate, the Panel concluded that it was necessary and proportionate to impose a requirement for him to undergo specific training on contracting with clients and to demonstrate improvement in practice.

The Panel considered whether to require the Member to send a letter of apology to the Complainant. It decided, from the Complainant’s demeanour during the hearing, there was a real risk that a letter of apology would cause the Complainant distress or harm. It concluded that such a sanction was, in this case, inappropriate.

The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to provide the Â鶹ԭ´´ with the following within 8 weeks of the date of this letter:

1. Evidence of the completion of 6 hours of continuous professional development (CPD) relating to contracting with clients.

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

a. reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong, with particular emphasis on contracting in accordance with paragraph 31 of the Â鶹ԭ´´ Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018;

b. demonstrates understanding of the negative impact of inadequate contracting on clients and the reputation of the profession and the Â鶹ԭ´´ and, conversely, the positive impacts of effective contracting;

c. recognises the impact of his conduct on the Complainant;

d. details what he has learned and what he has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong;

e. Provide a new professional contract.

3. Confirmation that he has discussed his CPD, learning and personal statement with his supervisor.

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

Ìý