网爆门

June 2025: Tracy Murtagh, Reference No 00616214, Registrant ID 87045

The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of [鈥�] met on [鈥�] remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the complaint made by [鈥�] (Complainant) against Tracy Murtagh (Member), a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (网爆门) individual member.In attendance were [鈥�] (Clerk鈥檚 Assistant), [鈥�] (Clerk鈥檚 Assistant) and [鈥�] (Clerk to the Panel).

The Complainant was accompanied by [鈥�] (Professional Supporter). The Member was not in attendance.

Preliminary matters

The Member advised 网爆门 by email dated 20 February 2025 that she would not be attending this hearing. The 网爆门 Case Processor replied asking the Member why she was unable to attend and the Member responded on 25 February stating:
鈥淢y [鈥�] is having a [鈥�] on Thursday. I am in no [鈥�] for a Hearing. I also feel that I have given my explanation of what happened and can do no more.

If it is required I will attend at a later date.鈥�
In view of the Member鈥檚 non-attendance, the Panel considered as a preliminary matter whether the hearing should proceed, in accordance with paragraph 5.9 of the Professional Conduct Procedure. Under this paragraph the Panel may decide to:

a) proceed with the Hearing in the Member鈥檚 absence; or
b) adjourn the Hearing to a new date; or
c) dismiss the allegations, which means that the case will be closed.

The Panel heard oral submissions from the Complainant who said that he would understand if the Panel decided that the hearing should be adjourned. However, his preference was for the hearing to proceed as he would like the matter to be resolved.

The Panel considered whether the hearing could proceed without unfairness to both parties. It bore in mind that the Member would not have the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Panel. It also took into account that the Complainant would not have the opportunity to ask questions of the Member.

Having given careful consideration to the written representations of the Member and the oral representations of the Complainant, the Panel concluded that it was fair and appropriate for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Member. In reaching this decision, it took into account the following:

鈥� There has been no request for an adjournment from the Member.
鈥� The Member states that she has 鈥済iven my explanation of what happened and can do no more鈥�.

鈥� The documentary evidence (in particular the electronic messages) and the Member鈥檚 written submissions are sufficient to enable it to reach findings on the allegations.

鈥� The Complainant wished the matter to proceed today.

In the circumstances, the Panel agreed that the public interest in public protection through the effective regulation of 网爆门 members and the fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations over-rode any potential detriment to the Member in the hearing proceeding in her absence.

Summary

Complainant鈥檚 submissions

1. The Complainant complained about Tracy Murtagh, an individual Member of 网爆门. He stated that following their interactions he felt in a worse mental state than before;

2. The Complainant sought counselling to identify whether he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. Over a two-month period the Complainant had only had one session despite making four appointments. The Member repeatedly cancelled sessions at short notice (two within hours of the appointment). The first appointment on 30 October 2023 was cancelled four hours before as the Member had overlooked that she was having her room soundproofed. The second appointment on 8 November was cancelled the day before because of a 鈥榝amily emergency鈥�, and the Complainant lost a day of work. One appointment was offered at very short notice on Zoom 鈥� which the Complainant had previously told the Member he was not comfortable with;

3. At that time the Complainant badly needed help and the anticipation of the meetings was a lifeline to him. He was extremely depressed and confused yet despite the disappointment of the cancellations he chose to keep going as the first session had gone well;

4. During those two months there were two hiatuses when the Complainant requested an appointment but received no response from the Member for weeks and had to chase her 鈥� the Member was unreliable and unavailable. The Complainant requested an appointment on 29 November 2023 and did not hear anything. He messaged on 12 December 2023 saying: 鈥楥ould you let me know whether I鈥檒l be able to continue counselling with you? I鈥檇 very much like to, but I鈥檒l need to establish some regularity鈥�. This was difficult, uncomfortable, and embarrassing to send. The Member did not reply until 4 January 2024, offering 16 January 2024 which was agreed. On 16 January 2024 at 8am the Member texted to say that the weather was too bad for her to drive and offered a zoom appointment. The Complainant declined and the Member offered 19 January. This was agreed. At 07.50 the Member sent a text asking to move the appointment to 4pm from 6pm, again because of bad weather. The Complainant replied saying 鈥業 actually can鈥檛 move to 4. Please let me know if you can still do 6. I really need to move on with counselling and just can鈥檛 cope with continued delays鈥�. The gaps and cancelled appointments exacerbated the Complainant鈥檚 instability;

5. The Member then terminated the relationship via text with no reason, suggesting that he find another counsellor. A few minutes after this text the Member sent him a message which stated 鈥楴arcissist I knew he was anyway鈥�. The Member said that this was meant for someone else, but the Complainant believes that it was referring to him. The Complainant says it does not matter whether it was or was not about him. Sending it to a person who is petrified they may be a narcissist means that to him it definitely was about him. This devastated the Complainant as the thought he may be a narcissist terrifies him and was the reason he sought counselling in the first place. It was dismissive, confusing and disturbing;

6. The Member 鈥榓nnounced her verdict鈥� on the Complainant behind his back at the same time as cutting him off from future dialogue, having apparently identified him as a narcissist but did not tell him 鈥� instead sharing her judgement with others. The Complainant felt humiliated and betrayed;

7. In her final messages to the Complainant, the Member implied that the Complainant was at fault. For example, on 19 January 2024 the Member texted:

鈥業 understand that this is difficult and at times you couldn鈥檛 make the appointments I had made鈥�. This was inaccurate and misleading 鈥� the Complainant never missed an appointment. When the Member suggested appointments that the Complainant could not make, he let her know as soon as possible so the slot could be made available for someone else; and

8. Further, when the Member states 鈥榃e had also agreed some time in the new year, which we did鈥�, this too was inaccurate and misleading. On 13 December 2023 the Complainant asked her for a date early in the new year and the Member did not respond until 4 January 2024 offering a date nearly two weeks later.

9. Keeping a proper diary and responding in timely fashion to clients鈥� appointments messages is important and the Complainant does not think the Member did this.

10. The Complainant said that he found the Member鈥檚 behaviour thoughtless, cold hearted, untruthful and not befitting of a counsellor.

11. The Complainant said that the Member鈥檚 response was untruthful as they had only had one session together and they had never discussed him finding an alternative therapist.

Member鈥檚 submissions

1. In a response dated 4 June 2024, the Member said that she categorically refuted the complaint. She stated that:

2. The text message sent to the Complainant was sent in error and was a personal comment made about a partner and was meant for her mother. As she had been texting the Complainant shortly before this, she accidentally sent the message to him. He was not named or referred to in any way in the message.

3. The Complainant contacted her with a view to starting therapy as his worry was that his family were calling him a narcissist which upset him greatly and left him with self-doubt and sadness. She explained that she understood narcissistic traits but was not equipped or qualified to diagnose him. However she was happy to help him with other aspects of his life and self-confidence. This was discussed in the initial phone call before therapy.

4. Upon meeting the Complainant it was clear that he was fixated with wanting a diagnosis that she could not give him. She explained again that she was not qualified to do so. He was clearly distressed about what his family had said and she felt that she could help him with his anxiety around this.

5. Coming up to the second session the Complainant kept changing times. She felt this may be avoidance but felt it too early to bring this up. He attended the second session and again pressed me to reassure him that he was not a narcissist. She stated again that could not make that diagnosis. The Complainant seemed distressed about this, he was not angry just very sad.

6. They had one more session and again it took a lot of organising as the Complainant was busy and had family matters to attend to. They had a third session which was the last. When trying to organise another session, she provided a couple of dates which did not suit. She had talked previously in sessions to [鈥�] about him seeking another therapist as the Complainant said that he was frustrated with lack of progress. She mentioned this to him again when trying to organise an appointment for the 4th session that never took place.

7. The Member stated that she adheres to the 网爆门 ethical framework at all times and the safety and confidentiality of clients.

8. In a subsequent undated response, the Member stated that upon reflection, it has become clear to her that her handling of appointments and communication were less than satisfactory, possibly leading to a breakdown in rapport between herself and the Complainant. As a therapist she understands that continuity is of paramount importance to secure a safe, therapeutic relationship. She now believes that she has failed in this regard.

9. She has been dealing with personal issues that 鈥榓t the time resided in her subconscious鈥� and has since sought therapeutic support which has led to this reflection.

10. She apologises wholeheartedly to the Complainant for any emotional upset she may have caused him as this behaviour is completely out of character for her and goes against her strong ethics and beliefs as a counsellor and as a human being.

11. Whilst the text message sent in error on 19 January was not about or meant for the Complainant, she fully appreciates how the timing and nature of the message could have been very distressing for him to receive as this would be a trigger given his reason for seeking support.

12. She accepts that the way in which she ended the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant was professionally and ethically wrong. This was the first and last time that this will happen and she apologises to the Complainant for any upset this may have caused him.

13. She accepts that her responses following the text sent in error were not in line with the 网爆门 ethical framework or her own ethics. She further accepts that these actions would have caused the Complainant to feel lost, confused and disillusioned with the therapeutic process.

14. She feels devastated by this as she prides herself in providing the highest standard of care to every client. She apologises to the Complainant and fully acknowledges the negative impact that this text message may have had on him.

15. She is open to discussing this with the Complainant if he would be interested in doing so, to provide him with a sense of closure so that this does not impede his ability to seek therapy in the future.

Allegations

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member failed to develop her client鈥檚 trust in that she:
a. Cancelled a number of appointments at short notice; and/or
b. Failed to respond to communications from him within a reasonable time or at all; and/or
c. Falsely suggested that the difficulty in arranging appointments was the fault of the Complainant; and/or
d. Sent him a message in error which said 鈥淣arcissist I knew he was anyway鈥�.
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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 12 (We will do everything we can to develop and protect our clients鈥� trust) and/or 41 (Any unplanned breaks due to illness or other causes will be managed in ways to minimise inconveniencing clients and, for extended breaks, may include offering to put clients in touch with other practitioners.)

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member ended the therapeutic relationship inappropriately in that she:

a. Ended it abruptly by electronic message; and/or

b. Failed to give a proper reason for the ending.

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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 39 (We will endeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings and be sensitive to our client鈥檚 expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together.)

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to take responsibility for her actions in sending the client a message in error, in that she:

a. Did not apologise for the error; and/or
b. Did not acknowledge the impact of her error on him; and/or
c. Did not take steps to repair the harm caused by her actions.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 52 (We will ensure candour by being open and honest about anything going wrong and promptly inform our clients of anything in our work that places clients at risk of harm, or has caused them harm, whether or not the client(s) affected are aware of what has occurred by:

a) taking immediate action to prevent or limit any harm
b) repairing any harm caused, so far as possible
c) offering an apology when this is appropriate

Documents and evidence before the Panel

The Panel was provided with the following written materials:

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

The Panel read all of the above, then questioned, and listened to the verbal evidence provided by the Complainant.
The Panel had to consider the following:

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

Findings

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

Allegation 1

Allegation 1.1

1.1a. The Complainant confirmed in his answers to questions from the Panel that there was no other communication between him and the Member apart from the electronic messages provided and one or two telephone calls. There was no evidence from the Member to suggest that any other communication had taken place. The Panel noted that the messages included reference to a number of appointments which were cancelled by the Member, including one cancelled on the day of the appointment and another which was cancelled the day before an appointment. It noted also the Member鈥檚 subsequent acknowledgement that her handling of appointments and communications was 鈥渓ess than satisfactory鈥�.

Allegation 1.1a was therefore found PROVED.

1.1b. The Panel noted that there were significant gaps between the dates of the messages between the parties, in particular between 29 November 2023 and 12 December 2023, and between 13 December 2023 and 4 January 2024. The Panel did not consider it reasonable to delay for such periods in sending either an acknowledgement or a substantive reply. It noted also the Member鈥檚 acceptance that this was not satisfactory.

Allegation 1.1b was therefore found PROVED.

1.1c. The Panel noted that the Member stated in her electronic message to the Complainant on 19 January that 鈥渁t times you couldn鈥檛 make appointments I had made鈥�, although she was referring to dates proposed by her rather than appointments made. The Panel did not find evidence suggesting that the Complainant had cancelled agreed appointments. However, although the Panel considered that the Member鈥檚 message implied that the Complainant bore responsibility for the difficulty in arranging appointments, it did not find that this amounted to a false statement that it was his fault.

Allegation 1.1c was therefore found NOT PROVED.

1.1d. The Panel had sight of the message referred to and noted that the Member accepted having sent it, although she denied that it was about the Complainant. She acknowledged that this would have caused the Complainant to feel 鈥渓ost, confused and disillusioned鈥�.

Allegation 1.1d was therefore found PROVED.

Allegation 1.2

The Panel then considered whether its findings in respect of Allegation 1.1 amounted to a failure to meet paragraphs 12 and 41 of the 网爆门 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It bore in mind that not every failure will amount to a breach of professional standards.
1.1a The Panel heard from the Complainant that he felt let down by the Member鈥檚 cancellations as these appointments were really important to him. It noted also that the Member in her response accepted that her conduct was 鈥渓ess than satisfactory, possibly leading to a breakdown in rapport between myself and the complainant.鈥� The Panel found therefore that the conduct found proved in Allegation 1.1a failed to develop the client鈥檚 trust and amounted to a breach of Paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework.

The Panel did not consider that cancelled appointments constituted unplanned breaks as stated in Paragraph 41 of the Ethical Framework and it did not find therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in Allegation 1.1a amounted to a breach of Paragraph 41.

1.1b The Panel heard from the Complainant that he felt anxious and vulnerable when he did not receive responses or acknowledgements to his messages and was reluctant to chase the Member as he felt that he was to blame. The Panel noted again that the Member had accepted that her communication with the Complainant was less than satisfactory. The Panel found that the conduct found proved in Allegation 1.1b failed to develop the client鈥檚 trust and therefore amounted to a breach of Paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework.

Whilst the Panel acknowledged that there had been unreasonable delays by the Member in responding to messages, it did not consider that these delays constituted unplanned breaks as stated in Paragraph 41 of the Ethical Framework and it did not find therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in Allegation 1.1b amounted to a breach of Paragraph 41.

1.1c Having found Allegation 1.1c found not proved, the Panel did not go on to consider whether there had been a breach of the Ethical Framework in respect of that matter.

1.1d The Panel heard from the Complainant that the message he received from the Member had 鈥渄estroyed鈥� him and that he 鈥渇ell to pieces for days鈥� afterwards. It noted that the Member accepted in her response that her actions were not in line with the Ethical Framework and she acknowledged 鈥渢he negative impact that this text message may have had on him.鈥� The Panel found that the conduct found proved in Allegation 1.1d failed to protect the client鈥檚 trust and therefore amounted to a breach Paragraph 12 of the Ethical Framework.

The Panel did not consider that Paragraph 41 of the Ethical Framework was relevant to the conduct in Allegation 1.1d and it did not find therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in this allegation amounted to a breach of Paragraph 41.

Allegation 1.2 was therefore found PROVED IN PART.

Allegation 2

Allegation 2.1

2.1a. The Panel noted that the Member ended the therapeutic relationship by electronic message dated 19 January. In a previous response to the complaint, she stated that she had discussed the possibility of the Complainant finding an alternative therapist in a session with him, although no evidence of that discussion was provided. The Complainant expressly denied that any such conversation had taken place and said that the decision to end therapy had come as a complete surprise to him. The Member has subsequently accepted that the way she ended the relationship was 鈥減rofessionally and ethically wrong.鈥� The Panel found therefore that the Member ended it abruptly by electronic message.

Allegation 2.1a was therefore found PROVED.

2.1b. The Panel noted that the message terminating the therapeutic relationship referred to their difficulties in finding mutually convenient dates for sessions, stating 鈥淎 lot of dates didn鈥檛 suit you鈥�, and her rural location which made travelling to sessions difficult in bad weather. The Complainant told the Panel that the abrupt tone of the message led to him to believe that he had 鈥渕essed up鈥� and that the ending was his fault. The Panel did not consider that the Member had adequately explained why the therapeutic relationship could not continue, nor had she sought to find a workable solution. It noted also her subsequent acceptance that she had acted unprofessionally. The Panel found therefore that the Member had failed to give a proper reason for the ending.

Allegation 2.1b was therefore found PROVED.

Allegation 2.2

The Panel then considered whether its findings in respect of Allegation 2.1 amounted to a breach of paragraph 39 of the 网爆门 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It bore in mind that not every failure will amount to a breach of professional standards.
2.1a The Panel noted that Paragraph 39 of the Ethical Framework requires Members to 鈥渆ndeavour to inform clients well in advance of approaching endings鈥�. Having found that the Member ended the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant by electronic message, with no prior discussion or warning, the Panel found that the conduct found proved in Allegation 2.1a amounted to a breach of Paragraph 39 of the Ethical Framework.
2.1b The Panel heard from the Complainant that he had been shocked by the message ending therapy and had felt that it must have been his fault. It noted also that the Member had accepted in her formal response that her conduct had been 鈥減rofessional and ethically wrong鈥�. The Panel found that the Member had not met the requirement to be 鈥渟ensitive to our client鈥檚 expectations and concerns when we are approaching the end of our work together鈥�. It therefore found that the Member鈥檚 conduct in relation to Allegation 2.1b amounted to a breach of Paragraph 39 of the Ethical Framework.

Allegation 2.2 is therefore found PROVED.

Allegation 3

Allegation 3.1

3.1a The Panel noted that having been notified that she had sent the message to the Complainant in error, the Member responded 鈥淭he message was sent in error and was a personal matter. Good luck for the future. T. Murtagh鈥� Following a response from the Complainant stating that he intended to refer the matter to the Member鈥檚 regulator, she responded 鈥淎nything you would like to send please forward it to my solicitor鈥�.
Whilst the Panel accepted that the message had been sent in error, it noted that the Member in her responses did not apologise or take responsibility for her mistake.

Allegation 3.1a was therefore found PROVED

3.1b The Panel noted that the Member鈥檚 responses to the Complainant simply advised him to contact her solicitor and did not acknowledge or take responsibility for the possible impact on the Complainant of receiving the message. It noted also that in her subsequent response to 网爆门, she states that she now fully acknowledges the negative impact it may have had. The Panel found that the Member in her conduct at the time, did not acknowledge or seek to establish the impact of her behaviour on the Complainant.

Allegation 3.1b was therefore found PROVED.

3.1c The Panel heard from the Complainant that the receipt of the message had caused him significant anxiety and he considered the Member鈥檚 subsequent replies to be 鈥渃old hearted and aggressive鈥�. The Panel noted that the Member in her responses at the time did not enquire as to the Complainant鈥檚 wellbeing and made no attempt to rectify the situation. When the Complainant suggested that he intended to refer the matter to her regulator, the Member did not provide details to enable him to do so but instead referred him to her solicitor. In the Member鈥檚 response to the complaint she now accepts that her actions at the time were neither in line with ethical standards nor her own standards. The Panel found that she failed to take responsibility for her actions in that she did not take steps to repair the harm caused to the Complainant.

Allegation 3.1c was therefore found PROVED.

Allegation 3.2

The Panel then considered whether its findings in respect of Allegation 3.1 amounted to a failure to meet paragraph 52 a, b and/or c of the 网爆门 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It bore in mind that not every failure will amount to a breach of professional standards.

3.1a The Panel found that, even accepting that the sending of the message had been an error, the Member should have demonstrated candour by accepting responsibility for her error and apologising to the Complainant. The Panel noted that the Member now accepts that her actions at the time were not in line with the 网爆门 ethical framework. The Panel found therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in relation to Allegation 3.1a amounted to a breach of Paragraph 52 a, b and c of the Ethical Framework.

3.1b The Panel found that the Member鈥檚 response to the Complainant at the time did not demonstrate concern for his wellbeing nor seek to identify any possible impact on him caused by her error. She now acknowledges that her actions may well have caused the Complainant to feel lost, confused and disillusioned, and that they fell short of ethical standards. The Panel found therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in relation to Allegation 3.1b amounted to a breach of Paragraph 52 a, b and c of the Ethical Framework.

3.1c The Panel considered that the responses from the Member at the time were defensive and did not seek to repair any harm caused or provide the Complainant with any assistance moving forward. It noted that she now accepts this. The Panel found therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in relation to Allegation 3.1c amounted to a breach of Paragraph 52 a, b and c of the Ethical Framework.

Allegation 3.2 is therefore found PROVED

Decision

Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 12, 39 and 52 a, b and c of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in the Counselling Professions 2018.

Sanction

The Panel reconvened on 15 April 2025 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 网爆门 Protocol 14 Guidance on Sanctions. The Member had been invited to make submissions on sanction but had not done so.
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 allegations upheld in this case:

The Member is required, within 12 weeks of the date of this decision, to submit the following to 网爆门:

1. Evidence of successful completion of at least 12 hours CPD in relation to:

a) The importance of managing therapeutic endings;
b) The importance of trust in the therapeutic relationship;
c) The duty of candour.

This should include details and references of courses undertaken and/or resources read /accessed.

2. Following completion of the CPD, a detailed reflection addressing:

a) What went wrong in this case, in relation to each allegation found proved;
b) What she has learned from the CPD undertaken;
c) The changes she has made to her practice to prevent a repetition of the issues in this case.

3. A genuine and sincere letter of apology to the Complainant, addressing the harm caused to him in relation to each allegation found proved.

4. Confirmation that all elements of the sanction have been discussed with her supervisor.

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

听