February 2025: EH, Reference No 00797416, Registrant ID 379887

February 2025: Eve Houseman, Reference No 00797416, Registrant ID 379887

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 On 6 February Year 1, 20 February Year 1 and 5 April Year 1, the Member cancelled appointments with the Complainant without:

a. Providing reasonable notice of cancellation; and/or

b. Providing adequate reasons for the cancellation; and/or

c. Making adequate efforts to reschedule appointments

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: 41 (Any unplanned
breaks due to illness or other causes will be managed in ways to minimize inconveniencing clients....)

1.3 Allegations 1.1 (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) amount to professional misconduct as defined
in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1 Following cancellation of the final planned appointment on 20 April Year 1, the Member failed to respond to the Complainant adequately or at all.

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: 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients ’trust.)

2.3 Allegation 2.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional
Conduct Procedure.

Documents and evidence before the Panel

In coming to its decision, the Panel carefully considered the following:

• The Association’s Case Papers
• The Â鶹ԭ´´ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018

In coming to its decision, the Panel carefully considered the following:

• The allegations made
• The written evidence
• The oral evidence of the witness
• What weight to attach to each piece of evidence
• Whether the allegations should be upheld

Background and summary of Evidence

1. […] (the Complainant and witness) complains about Eve Houseman, a former individual Member of Â鶹ԭ´´ (the former Member) whom she saw for 7 sessions of therapy between 23 January Year 1 and 25 March Year 1 for work related stress issues; she had experienced months of workplace bullying.

2. After two sessions a third was booked for 6 February Year 1. The former Member cancelled it 90 minutes before the Complainant was due to see her. The former Member said she was poorly. The Complainant hoped it would be re-arranged for later in the week – it was not.

3. After the next session on 13 February Year 1, the next booked session was on 20 February Year 1. Again, around 90 minutes before the Complainant was due to see the former Member, she cancelled again. The former Member said she had an emergency to attend to and needed to reschedule; no reason was given for the emergency.

4. Despite the Complainant stating she was available later that week, the next session was not arranged until 1 March Year 1.

5. After three further sessions, another was booked for 5 April Year 1. Two hours before that session, the former Member cancelled it giving no reason.

6. This appointment was re-arranged by the Complainant for 20 April Year 1. The former Member was never proactive in trying to re-arrange appointments. Again, 90 minutes before this session it was cancelled. This time, the former Member said it was because of building works and builders being noisy. The Complainant and her […] drove past the building at 16:30 – the time of the appointment. There were no builders working at that time. There was scaffolding at the entrance of the building but not at the front of the building where the former Member’s consultation room was. The Complainant felt frustrated as she had a lot to discuss and had not seen the former Member since 25 March Year 1. The Complainant texted the former Member asking when they could meet next; this was met with silence. The Complainant wrote again the following day and provided a couple of dates and asked the former Member to let her know if she no longer wanted to see her. No response was received.

7. The Complainant left it a week. There was no contact from the former Member whatsoever until the Complainant asked for a refund of £60 from the last appointment on 5 April Year 1. A day later the Complainant received confirmation that a refund had been made; this was without a note or explanation – just silence. The Complainant felt totally abandoned.

The Hearing

The former Member did not attend.

A decision was made on 24 June Year 2 by a Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the former Member due to the non-engagement by the former Member in the proceedings up to that date. The former Member has not engaged in these proceedings since that decision was made.

The hearing proceeded in the absence of the former Member.

[…] presented the case on behalf of the Â鶹ԭ´´.

The principal document in the Association’s case papers was the witness statement of the Complainant dated 6 July Year 2 with three exhibits attached which included electronic communications between the Complainant and the former Member. The Complainant’s witness statement and exhibits set out the Information she had put in her original complaint to Â鶹ԭ´´.

The Complainant took the affirmation, adopted her witness statement and answered clarifying questions from the Panel.

The witness informed the Panel that because of the behaviour of the former Member she felt abandoned and upset and wondered ‘what did I do wrong?’, ‘why did this happen?’, ‘who was going to help me now?’ The witness explained that it felt quite hard to find someone she would ‘click’ with, that she had had counselling in the past but had not experienced the ‘click’ that she experienced with the former Member. The witness further explained that she was in a better place than she had been before she had started [her work with the former Member] but was not yet in the place she wanted to be. The witness stated it was difficult, that she felt completely ‘ghosted’.

The witness went on to explain to the Panel that when she had previously had counselling there would be a conversation about how she was getting on and how many more sessions she would need, but that this didn’t happen with the former Member, that with the former Member there was a ‘clean break’. The witness told the Panel that she asked the former Member when the next session would be but she was met with a wall of silence and that this was very tough.

Decisions and Reasons for Findings

The Panel received and accepted advice from its Clerk.

Having fully considered all the evidence in the case the Panel made the following findings, bearing in mind throughout its deliberations that the burden was on the Â鶹ԭ´´ to prove each allegation on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1.1

On 6 February Year 1, 20 February Year 1 and 5 April Year 1, the Member cancelled appointments with the Complainant without:

a. Providing reasonable notice of cancellation; and/or

b. Providing adequate reasons for the cancellation; and/or

c. Making adequate efforts to reschedule appointments

Allegation 1.1 (a)

Found proved in its totality on the balance of probabilities.

The Panel considered each of the three dates in this part of the allegation in the context that the Complainant was seeking professional support from the former Member for the adverse impact on her of bullying in the workplace, the significance, therefore, of each of these appointments for the Complainant and that each appointment was cancelled on the day of the appointment between approximately one and a half to two hours before the appointment.

The decision of the Panel is that in the context set out above, the notice of cancellation given by the former Member on each of the three occasions was not reasonable.

Allegation 1.1 (b)

Found proved in part for the date of 5 April Year 1 on the balance of probabilities.

The Panel recognises there are times in the professional life of a therapist/counsellor when health or other circumstances prevent them from providing the professional service they have been scheduled to provide. The Panel accepts, therefore, that cancellation by the former Member of the session scheduled for 6 February Year 1 for a health reason and her cancellation of the session scheduled for 20 February Year 1 for an emergency (albeit unspecified) are adequate.

However, when she cancelled the session scheduled for 5 April Year 1 the former Member provided no reason, therefore no adequate reason. This part of the allegation, therefore, is found proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1.1 (c)

Found proved in part for the date of 5 April Year 1 on the balance of probabilities.

The Panel had before it two emails from the former Member to the Complainant dated 8 February Year 1 which resulted in an appointment on 13 February Year 1. The Panel considers this to amount to adequate efforts by the former Member to reschedule the appointment that had been scheduled for 6 February Year 1.

The Panel also had before it an email from the former Member to the Complainant dated 22 February Year 1 and a further email dated 23 February Year 1 which resulted in an appointment scheduled for 27th February Year 1, albeit that this session did not take place. The Panel considers this to amount to adequate efforts to reschedule the appointment that had been scheduled for 20 February Year 1.

The Panel had before it an email from the Complainant to the former Member dated 14 April Year 1 requesting to schedule a further appointment following the cancelled session of 5 April Year 1, session which was then agreed for the 20 April Year 1. The Panel found that the former Member was not pro-active in re-scheduling an appointment following the cancellation by them of the 5 April Year 1 appointment.

Allegation 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: 41 (Any unplanned breaks due to illness or other causes will be managed in ways to minimise inconveniencing clients....)

The Panel considers that the conduct as found demonstrates a failure by the former Member to manage her time in a professional manner and a failure to communicate with the Complainant in a way that minimised the impact of her conduct on the Complainant. The former Member caused, not only inconvenience to the Complainant but, by the number and nature of her failures over a period of time, caused distress to the Complainant.

The Panel determined that by not providing reasonable notice when she cancelled each of the three scheduled sessions, by not providing an adequate reason for cancelling the session scheduled for 5 April Year 1 and by not making adequate efforts to reschedule the session scheduled for 5 April Year 1 the former Member breached paragraph 41 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Allegation 2.1

Following cancellation of the final planned appointment on 20 April Year 1, the Member
failed to respond to the Complainant adequately or at all.

Found proved on the balance of probabilities.

Save for returning to the Complainant (at the Complainant’s request), the sum of £60 the Complainant had paid for the session that had been scheduled for 20 April Year 1, the Complainant received no further communication from the former Member after the former Member’s text on 20 April Year 1 cancelling the session scheduled for that day. The former Member did not respond the Complainant’s emails about cancellation of the session scheduled for 20 April Year 1. The Panel finds that the former Member failed to respond to the Complainant adequately or at all following cancellation of the final planned appointment on 20 April Year 1.

Allegation 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: 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients’ trust.)

The Panel considers that the former Member’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s emails after she (the former Member) cancelled the session scheduled for 20 April Year 1 was a breach of the trust the Complainant had placed in her as a professional and that the impact of her conduct on the Complainant was significant leaving the Complainant feeling ‘ghosted’.

The Panel determined that by failing to respond to the Complainant adequately or at all following cancellation of the final planned appointment on 20 April Year 1 the former Member breached paragraph 12 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Professional Misconduct

The Panel reminded itself of the definition of Professional Misconduct in the Â鶹ԭ´´ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:

Professional Misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.

The view of the Panel is that by her conduct as found the former Member failed to meet a number of core standards expected of a Â鶹ԭ´´ member in developing and maintaining a therapeutic relationship with a client and that her conduct fell seriously below the standards expected of her.

The decision of the Panel is that allegation 1.2 (a) in its totality, 1.2 (b) in relation to 5 April Year 1, 1.2 (c) in relation to 5 April Year 1 and 2.1 amount to professional misconduct.

Decision

The decision of the Panel is that:

(a) there has been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards with regard to Allegations 1.1 (a) for each of the three dates, 1.1 (b) and 1.1 (c) for 5 April Year 1 in that there has been a breach of paragraph 41 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, and

(b) there has failure to comply with the Professional Standards with regard to Allegation 2.1 in that that there has been a breach of paragraph 12 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 17 December Year 2 to consider what, if any, sanction was appropriate in this case. It 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 also took into consideration Â鶹ԭ´´ Protocol 14 – Guidance on Sanctions and the Â鶹ԭ´´ Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

The Panel noted that, in addition to the Member not engaging with the investigation of the complaint or the hearing, they had not provided any submissions in respect of sanction.

The Panel noted that the Member had not admitted to or apologised for her misconduct, neither shown insight nor undertaken remediation, had caused harm to the Complainant, and without any evidence of change, was likely to behave the same way in future. It agreed that the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct, as proved, was significantly aggravated by their failure to engage with the Â鶹ԭ´´ professional conduct process and that by relinquishing their membership and disengaging from their professional regulator they had aggravated the harm caused to the Complainant.

The Panel agreed that the lack of remediation and its previous finding of professional misconduct meant that it would be inappropriate to impose no sanction.

It went on to consider a written apology, a requirement to demonstrate change to practice and/or a requirement to undertake training. The Panel concluded that these were unworkable as the Member had disengaged from the Â鶹ԭ´´ procedure and was unlikely to comply. In any event, the Panel considered these would be inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the Member’s conduct coupled with their lack of engagement and insight and would not adequately protect the public and maintain professional standards and the reputation of the profession.

It went on to consider suspension or withdrawal. It considered a suspension of membership that would be lifted only once specified training and evidence of remediation and change of practice had been completed to the satisfaction of a sanction panel. However, due to the Member’s disengagement it decided this was unworkable.

The Panel noted that Protocol 14 lists factors and behaviours that may indicate that withdrawal is an appropriate sanction. These included:

• where the Member has knowingly and deliberately behaved in a way to cause harm to the Complainant or other members of the public.
• where the Member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, their behaviour; and
• any other factors the Decision Maker considers warrant withdrawal of membership.

It concluded that the Member’s disengagement throughout this matter was another factor that may warrant withdrawal of membership.

The Panel also noted that the Indicative Sanctions Guidance added the factor, ‘where the member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards’, which it considered was present in this case.

The Panel concluded that withdrawal of membership was the only sanction that would adequately address the risk posed to public protection and maintenance of the reputation and standards of the profession. It agreed that withdrawal was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances of this case.

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

Ìý

Ìý