In this section the Society gives details of the outcomes of any complaints made against members.
- There is a summary of the complaint
- The member's details
- The outcome of the investigation
- The details of sanctions imposed
- Details of suspension of membership
- Details of termination of membership
The Society’s complaints procedures seek to be open, transparent and proportionate. Sanctions issued by either the Assessment Panel or by the Independent Complaints Panel following a complaints hearing will be published on the Society’s website
The publication of such decisions provides information about the standards expected of registrants (and members); assists clients to make informed choices, and helps to maintain public confidence in the Accredited Register programme.
We aim to strike a balance and consider the rights of both clients and registrants and take account of the risk of any harm that may arise from the disclosure or non-disclosure of information
Details of sanctions will appear as an annotation to a registrant’s online register entry. In addition, an outline of the case will be placed on the ‘Outcomes of Complaints’ section of the website. A note of the complaint will be added to the member’s file.
Upon completion of the sanction, the Society will change the online register entry to reflect that the sanction has been met. The Society will display the “Sanction Met” annotation and the outline of the case under Outcomes of Complaints section for a further period of 6 months after completion of sanction. The members file will be updated.
If a sanction is not met, the Society will change the online register entry to “Sanction Not Met” and information on Outcomes of Complaint will be published on the Society website for a period of five years.
In cases where a member is removed from the register, or accepts Voluntary Removal following a panel hearing, the published decision will remain on the website for a period of five years.
If there is no sanction then no information will be published on the Society's website.
Outcome Of Complaints
- Terry Jones
Assessment Panel Date: 24/11/2021
Outcome: Consensual Disposal
Outline of Complaint
The Assessment Panel heard evidence that the registrant engaged his then partner as a client while they were still partners. Evidence was provided that she had paid for some of the numerous sessions provided to her. Terry Jones also confirmed that he had demonstrated his hypnotherapy skills at a public house with a bartender in attendance. The registrant admitted that he practised hypnotherapy on relations of his then partner.
The Assessment Panel heard that Terry Jones failed to take his client/hypnotherapist relationship with his then partner, to the supervision sessions he attended.
Assessment Panel Findings
The Panel found that the registrant breached the following sections of the National Hypnotherapy Society Code of Ethical Practice in force at the time of the events described.
The registrant failed to respect commonly understood boundaries by inviting and allowing a confused and unsafe mixture of personal and professional roles to arise in his relationship with the complainant.
The registrant failed to recognise and take account of the power imbalance inherent in a professional therapeutic relationship; jeopardising his then partner’s autonomy and wellbeing.
In this instance, the professional relationship developed after their personal involvement with each other was established. The registrant nevertheless crossed commonly understood professional boundaries by allowing a confused and unsafe mixture of relationships to develop, and by providing treatment to a members of his then partner’s family.
Practitioners are required to consider the implications of entering into dual relationships with clients, to avoid entering into relationships that are likely to be detrimental to clients and to be readily accountable to clients and colleagues for any dual relationships that occur. The Panel found that the registrant did not consider such implications, apparently because he was unaware of them and of this part of the Code of Ethical Practice. He did not seek supervision and therefore was not in any way accountable for the potential consequences.
By using a hypnotic technique on a client in a public house, apparently in the presence of the bartender, the registrant failed to conduct himself in an appropriately professional manner and risked undermining public confidence in the profession.
Assessment Panel Decision:
The Panel offered the registrant Consensual Disposal of the above via:
1) Admitting the breaches of the Code.
2) Undertaking the following sanctions:
1. Undergo further training approved by the Society in understanding and managing professional boundaries
2. Arrange and provide evidence of a contract for a minimum of 1.5 hours per month of clinical supervision with a supervisor acceptable to the Society for a duration of at least 6 months.
3. Produce a satisfactory written report of not less than 3000 words whereby they account for and clarify the mistakes in this case as notified to them and what learning they have taken from this experience. In particular, the Assessment Panel are seeking evidence of learning and development of practice in respect of :
- Learning from further training and supervision
- The importance of professional boundaries
- The risks and implications of dual relationships
The report is to be submitted no earlier than three months and no later than six months from the date of accepting Consensual Disposal.
Terry Jones accepted the Assessment Panel findings on 02/12/2021 and was sanctioned.
05/05/2022: The sanctions are now complete.