LATEST ISSUES 7th September, 2026
Updated: 7 days ago
Earlier today, I sent a letter to William Rodway, Investigation Team Manager - Investigations, Fitness to Practise at the Health and Care Professions Council. This letter, in response, to further information about my 'fitness to practice' complaint about registrant Sally Mungall, runs to almost 3900 words. I am publishing it here, to my blog, in three parts over the next five days. In the meantime I will be working on a pilot of my documentary that starts filming later this month. My documentary, intended for YouTube and other social media platforms, will be an account of my experiences in mental health services over the last several years, drawing specific attention to CAMHS and the Community Mental Health Team, both in Basingstoke.
In the meantime, here is the first part of my letter to William Rodway.
UPDATE Since originally publishing this post I have received a response from the Professional Standards Authority. I am now following their directions and taking the opportunity to revise all three parts of my letter sent to William Rodway. This revision includes some additional material.
'7th September, 2026 ( Updated 12th September, 2026 )
William Rodway
Investigation Team Manager - Investigations, Fitness to Practise
HCPC Case Update - ********* ICP case outcome
Dear William,
I am writing in response to your letter received by email on the 2nd September, 2026 in which you provided further information regarding the Investigating Committee Panel’s (ICP) recent decision with reference to *********
I have waited for almost FOUR YEARS for my ‘fitness to practice’ complaint to reach the IPC. During that time I have tirelessly collated an extravagance of evidence, culled from emails, documents, medical records, NICE guidelines and a myriad of sources that provide incontrovertible proof of the absolute failure of your registrant, Sally Mungall, to conform with good practice over many domains of competence while delivering psychological intervention in my case. I have also shown that she acted in defiance of the ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’ codified by you, the Health and Care Professions Council. Indeed, I followed those same ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’ published on your website at https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-conduct-performance-and-ethics/ and contacted Sally Mungall, in good faith, politely asking for an explanation of the circumstances in which things have gone wrong and why she had misrepresented me in communication with her clinical and leadership cohorts within CAMHS, CRISIS, the local Community Mental Health Team and Hampshire Police. Sally Mungall ignored my request and reported me, for a second time, to Hampshire Police, fabricating an accusation that I had been ‘stalking’ her.
I had not been so naïve as to believe that Sally Mungall would ever have faced punitive sanctions; I had always suspected that she was going to walk away from an HCPC ‘final hearing’ ( I have followed many similar cases through the HCPC Tribunal Service Hearings Calendar and feel I have a reasonably good understanding of the quality of discretion exercised by the ICP.
But I DID expect Sally Mungall to answer before either a Conduct and Competence Panel or a Health Panel.
I DID expect to be represented, in person, and to be cross-examined.
I DID expect to have the opportunity to listen to Sally Mungall give her account.
I DID expect to have the opportunity to question and to hear answers to questions that have remained unanswered for over FOUR YEARS!
The psychological damage caused by Sally Mungall has been so significant that I have little to no hope of a full recovery. I have been under the mental health care of the Community Mental Health Team in Basingstoke since September 2022 and received psychotherapy from four different therapists with no discernible improvement. In response to my oft repeated questions around the ‘why?’ each therapist has replied ‘You will probably never know.’ This is intolerable to me. Forthright, honest answers to genuine, reasonable questions would have gone a long way in assisting my mental health recovery.
Questions directed to Sally Mungall including
‘Why did you lie to me, to my face?’
‘Why did you lie about me to clinicians and leadership within CAHMS, CRISIS and CMHT?’
‘Why did you lie to Hampshire Police about me?’
‘Why did you fabricate an accusation of stalking?’
I made comprehensive complaints about CAMHS and the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman with reference to issues caused by Sally Mungall. The PHSO asked me to compile a list of questions that I wanted the Trust to answer. I compiled a list of SEVENTY-TWO! The PHSO then informed me that they would not present even one of my questions to the Trust. The PHSO are ‘corrupt by design’.
I was clinically abused. That should have been enough. It wasn’t. Afterwards I was lied to, to my face. I was lied about, misrepresented, made a scapegoat and monster, wrongly pathologized, blamed for my psychological transference and unjustly criminalised. Four years on and nothing has changed. Nobody has been held to account for any of those things. Nobody answered any of my seventy-two questions. Nobody even answered one!
I will now respond to the points raised in your letter, William.
YOUR LETTER
You stated
‘Firstly, I want to clarify the remit of the ICP. The ICP’s role is not to make findings of fact, but to assess whether there was a realistic prospect that the HCPC could prove the allegations before a final hearing, a Conduct and Competence Committee.’
WHY ARE FACTS MADE SO ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT BY THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE PANEL?
ICP REMIT
I believe that the remit of the ICP is flawed from the outset. You have quoted ‘The ICP’s role is not to make findings of fact’. This is an absurd position to take. Surely, an establishing of all known facts secures a realistic prospect of proving allegations? YOU had earlier advised me of the Judicial Review process for challenging the ICP decision. The judicial review website explains the value of fact-finding in investigations.
‘The tribunal’s fact-finding role Fact-finding is the central task of most tribunals. The tribunal hearing is usually the first, and often the only, time that the facts of a case are judicially determined.’
The initial objective of ANY investigation is to establish the essential facts of the case so that there is a firm basis to agree or impose sanction or penalty.
You then stated
‘although there was a realistic prospect of proving that the registrant provided therapy beyond the intended scope of ‘Parent Work’, and did not obtain informed consent for that therapy…’
FACTS
The fact that the ‘registrant provided therapy beyond the intended scope of ‘Parent Work’ isn’t even disputed’. It has been confirmed as FACT, in writing, by the Trust. Even the feckless PHSO were in agreement with this assessment and were willing to uphold this part of my complaint. Both the Trust and the PHSO were suitably convinced by the same evidence that I provided YOU, the HCPC, to admit in writing by the Trust and to leverage action against the Trust and to recommend compensation. The evidence is incontrovertible and makes the need to consider ‘realistic prospect’ redundant. The ICP should have forwarded this part of my complaint to a Conduct and Competence Committee. I was certainly cajoled and pressured into accepting ‘art therapy’ and I only acquiesced when it was suggested that it was necessary to help my daughter, Meg, and her concurrent therapy.
‘Informed Consent’ was absolutely necessary ahead of the invasive psychotherapy undertaken by Sally Mungall, including an understanding of ‘psychological transference’ and especially the very real risks associated with ‘suicidal ideation’. I made it absolutely clear to Sally Mungall about my own suicidal ideation, taking time to describe to her my suicide plans. Indeed, she gave me parting gifts ( ‘transitional objects’ ) of two photographs of Kielder Water with her hand-written message on the back that referenced my suicide plans. She understood the risks involved and yet failed to ensure that I was ‘informed consent’.
I would also question whether the ‘informed consent’ ethics principle is typically considered by Sally Mungall during ANY of her consultations, usually children and adolescents.
Even the HCPC website states
‘For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person giving consent must have the capacity to make the decision.
By ‘voluntary’, we mean that the person makes the decision freely and without being persuaded or pressurised by professionals, family, friends or others.’
ALSO. The HCPC website states
‘What is consent?
Consent, for the purposes of confidentiality, means that the service user understands and does not object to:
the information being disclosed or shared;
the reason for the disclosure;
the people or organisations the information will be shared with; and
how the information will be used.’
Sally Mungall forwarded two of my intimate letters written to her to staff at CMHT. Those letters were eventually ‘lost’ by Sean Dale-Malloy of CMHT. Those letters were personal and should have been returned to me if Sally Mungall did not want them anymore. Those letters had NO clinical value.
You went further, stating
‘there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that she failed to maintain professional boundaries,’
A Conduct and Competence Committee would have challenged Sally Mungall and cross-examined me in an effort to establish the facts. Opportunity missed. Sally Mungall unequivocally failed to manage and maintain professional boundaries precisely because she did not have the competence to handle my transference and explicitly because she was compromised by her own counter-transference ( see below ). Sally Mungall explicitly referred to her own difficulties in maintaining the therapeutic boundaries in her ‘Progress Notes’, raising these issues in her own ‘supervision’.
‘delayed an appropriate referral,’
This is FACT. Proven in the documented records. Sally Mungall WAS the ‘clinical lead’ and had sole responsibility for initiating my daughter, Meg’s ‘transition’ to adult mental health services in accordance with internal protocol and NICE policy guidelines.
‘or worked beyond her scope of practice.’
The very FACT that Sally Mungall stepped beyond her remit is undeniable proof, in of itself, a catastrophic error of judgement. She was motivated by professional ego and undone by academic over-ambition ( I was her ticket out of career doldrums; a ‘big’ academic paper about me would have enhanced her CV and career prospects ).
Psychological transference is the inevitable phenomenal consequence of psychotherapy. Transference offers therapists a powerful tool to understand their clients more deeply. By observing and interpreting the transference dynamics, therapists can gain insight into the client's relational patterns and unresolved issues.
Countertransference has been viewed as the therapist’s reaction to projections of the client onto the therapist. It has been defined as the redirection of a therapist’s feelings toward a patient and the emotional entanglement that can occur with a patient (Fink, 2011).
I believe there is enough evidence to prove that Sally Mungall did not possess the practical experience to objectively handle MY transference. At the time that Sally Mungall went beyond her remit and delivered inappropriate therapy to me she was working for CAMHS. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) is the name for care provided by the NHS and other organisations in the UK for children, generally until school-leaving age, who have difficulties with their emotional well-being or are deemed to have persistent behavioural problems. Child and adolescents were Sally Mungall’s typical patients. I was neither. I am a grown man with his own, decades-long entrenched adult mental health issues informed by maladaptive reactions to significant childhood abuse and neglect and intergenerational trauma. I was so untypical a patient for Sally Mungall that she insisted that she was going to write a ‘big academic paper’ on me.'
...
Part Two to be published on the 9th September 2026
Comments