THE TRUTH BEHIND THE HDC COMPLAINT: A PROFESSIONAL COUNSELLOR’S RESPONSE TO A DECADE-DEFYING INJUSTICE
⚠️ If you’ve seen misleading media articles or online reviews about me, please read this full statement before forming an opinion. What you may have seen is only part of the story — and this is the side that was never heard.
— Neil Oliver
A Decade of Service, Undone in an Instant
For over ten years, I’ve dedicated myself to helping people through some of the most difficult and vulnerable moments of their lives. I’ve counselled hundreds of clients in person across New Zealand, Australia, and also around the world via Zoom. My mission has always been simple: to serve people with compassion, integrity, and a deep respect for their humanity—no matter who they are or what they’re facing.
But all of that came under attack because of one false complaint made by a former client—an individual who, in a previous session, openly admitted to having made false allegations against other men in her past simply because they had upset her.
This article is not about revenge or blame. It is about truth. It is about standing up for myself, my profession, and for the many other practitioners who have been blindsided and broken by a system that has, in my view, failed to protect the very people it claims to serve.
The Session That Changed Everything
I had worked with this client over multiple sessions and believed we had developed a professional, respectful, and trusting therapeutic alliance. In one of our later sessions, she confided something profoundly disturbing: she had accused a man of rape, knowing the claim was false. She admitted that the encounter had been consensual, but she later regretted the decision and fabricated the allegation to avoid guilt, shame, and possible social fallout.
As a responsible counsellor, I responded with care—but also with ethical firmness. I reminded her that knowingly making false accusations, especially of such a serious nature, is a criminal offence in New Zealand. My role was not to shame or punish her, but to help her understand the potential consequences of such behaviour. I was calm, respectful, and compassionate.
At the end of that session, she appeared thankful. She hugged me and expressed appreciation. There were no signs of anger or discomfort. I believed the matter had been handled professionally and responsibly.
I was wrong.
A Pattern of Malice and Misuse of Process
Earlier in our therapeutic work, she had made an offhand but chilling admission: that she had previously used formal complaints systems against two different men—not because they had harmed her, but because they had “pissed her off.” She described how it made her feel powerful to “ruin someone” who had upset her emotionally.
In hindsight, that comment should have set off alarms. But like many counsellors, I chose to see the best in my client, and gave her the benefit of the doubt. I now realise that I had become her next target.
When the complaint was first filed with the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC), I received a brief email. It did not identify who the sender was, nor did it explain what the process involved or provide any documentation about my rights, their procedures, or the seriousness of the matter. There was no phone call, no official introduction, no offer of support or guidance—just a vague communication asking for a response to a complaint that I had not even seen in full.
Despite this, I responded. I briefly outlined the true version of events, as I’ve done here—explaining the context and the disclosures the complainant had made in previous sessions.
What I received in return was not engagement, fairness, or professional dialogue. Instead, I was told to provide all client records and session notes relating to the complainant. Based on my ethical training as a counsellor, I understood that disclosing a client’s private notes—without a legal subpoena—could constitute a breach of privacy laws. I had been trained that unless ordered by a court, it was not appropriate to hand over such documentation. So I declined.
In response, the HDC sent me an email stating that if I did not provide further information, they would proceed with their investigation regardless. At no point in this process was I informed that my full name, my business name, and the outcome of their investigation would be published publicly. I was not given the chance to respond to that possibility. I was not offered legal advice. I was not given fair warning. I was left completely in the dark.
To this day, I believe the HDC’s process was fundamentally flawed, and that it failed the most basic standards of natural justice. I was never afforded a fair process, informed consent, or transparency. I was treated not as a professional with rights—but as a foregone conclusion.
The HDC’s Failures and the Systemic Risk to Practitioners
The HDC’s process was deeply flawed from the beginning. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, no one from the Commission ever contacted me by phone to introduce themselves, explain the process, or offer guidance or support. I was never provided with information about my rights, the potential consequences of the investigation, or the possibility that my name and business could be publicly released.
When I responded—briefly explaining the truth and the therapeutic context—I was met with a demand to provide all session notes and client records. Based on my ethical training, I understood that disclosing such information without a legal order could breach privacy laws. I declined, unless compelled by a court. In response, I was told via email that the investigation would proceed regardless of my participation.
No one sought to verify the facts independently. No in-person interview was offered. No clinical notes were reviewed in context. My professional history, ethical intentions, and even the client’s own past disclosures about making false complaints were entirely dismissed. The process not only ignored critical evidence—it removed any chance for a fair and balanced assessment of the truth.
The Commission chose to believe the complainant without scrutiny, and worse—they chose to publicly name both myself and my business, a decision that has had devastating and ongoing consequences.
This is not just about me. This is about what happens when a regulator enables malicious complaints and fails to investigate with fairness and due diligence. It leaves every helping professional vulnerable—because at any moment, anyone can make a complaint, and the system may believe them automatically while dismissing the truth.
This, in my opinion, is grossly negligent. It is a failure of natural justice. And it has placed my mental health, financial stability, professional integrity, and personal life under extreme strain.
Media Amplification and Ongoing Harassment
Following the HDC’s public release, several media outlets republished their findings—without ever reaching out to me for comment (some claim they did in their articles but they did not) without fact-checking, and without concern for the real-life consequences of their headlines. These articles were framed in ways that cast judgment, damaged trust, and painted me in a light that was not only inaccurate but dehumanising.
The media did not consider the pattern of false complaints made by the individual involved. They did not investigate the lack of due process afforded to me. They simply took the HDC’s one-sided release and amplified it to the country and due to the nature of online content the world.
What followed was predictable and devastating:
- Clients cancelled future sessions.
- Drastic and unusual drop in online bookings.
- Family relationships became strained.
- I was targeted with defamatory online reviews, some of which I believe were written by the original complainant or her associates.
- My income dropped.
- My credibility was attacked.
- Personal name slandered
- Business name and brand ruined.
This attack has not ended. Malicious Google reviews continue to appear—reviews that are not only dishonest but illegal under New Zealand law. These reviews are not written by genuine clients but by individuals attempting to perpetuate harm and damage my reputation.
To this day, the consequences of the HDC’s decision and the resulting media coverage still follow me into my everyday work. New clients, potential clients, and even existing clients often bring up what they’ve seen online. It’s deeply embarrassing, and it undermines my credibility in situations where trust and safety are essential. In some cases, it has weakened or completely derailed the therapeutic alliance—something that takes time, care, and integrity to build.
This is not just a reputational issue—it’s a clinical one. The ability to practice effectively as a counsellor relies on mutual trust. When that trust is eroded by false public narratives, it harms not just me—but the very people who have come to me for help.
The Reviews Are Illegal – Here’s Why
The repeated, targeted online reviews being posted against me (especially by individuals who were never clients) constitute criminal and civil violations under several New Zealand laws. These include:
1. Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
- It is illegal to post digital content intended to cause serious emotional distress to another person.
- Offenders can be prosecuted and fined up to $50,000 or face up to 2 years imprisonment (section 22).
2. Defamation Act 1992
- Publishing a false statement that harms another person’s reputation—especially in a public or permanent medium like Google—is grounds for civil defamation.
- Compensation in defamation cases can range into the tens of thousands, depending on the severity.
3. Harassment Act 1997
- A pattern of behaviour (such as ongoing reviews or digital targeting) intended to intimidate or distress someone qualifies as harassment.
- Courts can issue restraining orders, and breaches carry criminal penalties.
4. Privacy Act 2020
- Collecting, sharing, or distorting personal information about someone without consent, especially when doing so with malice, can be a breach of privacy—particularly if the information causes significant harm.
To those posting such reviews: your behaviour is unlawful, and I am keeping a documented record of all ongoing harassment. I have already reported several instances to Netsafe, Google, and my legal advisors. In due course, I may also pursue formal legal proceedings and seek damages against individuals involved in the deliberate and malicious targeting of my business and reputation.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to defame, harass, or intentionally harm others—especially when the basis of such attacks is knowingly false. The law is clear, and I will not hesitate to use it if this behaviour continues.
Public Naming Without Legal Process — A Dangerous Precedent
Despite the seriousness of how this complaint was handled, it’s important to understand that an HDC investigation is not a legal process. It is not conducted in a courtroom. It does not meet the evidentiary standards of law. And yet, it carries the power to permanently damage lives through public exposure.
In my case, the HDC publicly released both my name and my business name — without ever speaking to me in person, without peer review, and without a court process. This was not a legal ruling. It was an administrative decision, made behind closed doors, without procedural safeguards.
What makes this more shocking is the contrast: in New Zealand, individuals found guilty of serious crimes — including rape and murder — have often received name suppression to protect their identity. Meanwhile, mental health professionals can be named and shamed based on unproven allegations, investigated outside of court, and left to suffer the fallout without recourse.
This imbalance is deeply flawed. Public naming should only occur when:
- Legal processes have been completed
- There is a clear and imminent public risk
- The practitioner has had a fair opportunity to defend themselves
Without these protections, the public naming of counsellors becomes not a tool of public safety — but a weapon of public destruction.
Clearing My Name—The Fight for Justice Has Begun
I refuse to be defined by a false complaint, a failed investigation, and a media frenzy that never sought the truth. I am now actively pursuing every available legal and regulatory avenue to challenge what has happened and clear my name.
These include:
- A formal complaint to the New Zealand Ombudsman for procedural failure and negligence on the part of the HDC.
- A complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, addressing the breach of natural justice, privacy, and the damage caused to my dignity, livelihood, and mental health.
- A legal review to explore a judicial review of the HDC’s decision through the High Court.
- Media takedown requests and Right to be Forgotten submissions to Google, seeking to remove harmful content from search results.
- Complaint submissions to the Media Council against outlets who reported false or misleading narratives without offering me the right of reply.
I will not stop until the full truth is made clear, my name is cleared, and the systems that allowed this injustice are held accountable.
A Final Word – Who I Am and What I Stand For
To anyone reading this—whether you’re a current client, a potential client, a colleague, or simply someone who stumbled across this page after reading something negative about me—I want to leave you with this:
I am not a perfect person. But I am an honest and caring professional.
I entered this field because I care about people. I care about the truth. I care about helping others heal. And for over a decade, I’ve shown up for my clients with consistency, compassion, and integrity. That hasn’t changed—even in the face of public attacks, private pain, and professional risk.
This situation has tested me in ways I never imagined. I’ve struggled. I’ve had to fight through anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. For a long time, I felt like my life had been hijacked by a system that refused to listen and by individuals who sought to harm me for reasons I’ll never fully understand.
But with support, good people around me, and the clarity that comes from truth—I’m still here. I’m still helping people. I’m still standing.
And I won’t stop.
To Future Clients
If you’ve read this far, thank you. I hope it shows you something of my character. I hope it helps you understand that while my name may have been dragged through the mud, my values haven’t changed.
You are welcome here. No matter your background, identity, beliefs, or relationship style—you will be treated with respect and without judgment.
If you have questions or concerns, I invite you to reach out. I believe in honest conversations and transparency. I won’t hide from difficult questions, and I won’t pretend this situation hasn’t affected me. But I will always offer a space that is safe, grounded, and deeply human.
To Those Who Continue to Target Me
Let this page serve as my public response to your ongoing harassment. I will no longer suffer in silence. I will pursue every legal, ethical, and digital path available to protect my name, my livelihood, and my mental health.
Your actions are unlawful. They are documented. And they will be held accountable in time.
To Anyone Who Believes in Justice
If you’ve ever experienced something similar—being falsely accused, silenced, or overlooked—I stand with you. The systems we trust to protect people must do better. They must be fair to both the complainant and the professional. They must follow due process. They must ask hard questions. They must seek the truth—not a headline.
Thank you for reading.
Thank you for listening.
And thank you—for seeing me.
— Neil Oliver
For those unfamiliar with the background of my situation, I’ve shared the full story in this detailed statement:
👉 Neil Oliver Counsellor – The Truth Behind the HDC Complaint