Question 1

What is the difference between ICF accreditation and CCE units?

Accepted Answer

ICF accreditation and CCE units serve completely different purposes and are not interchangeable. ICF Level 1 Accreditation (ACC - Associate Certified Coach) requires 60 hours of coach-specific training from an ICF Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP), 100 hours of coaching experience (75 with paying clients), 10 hours of mentor coaching, passing the Coach Knowledge Assessment (CKA), and ICF membership. ICF Level 2 Accreditation (PCC - Professional Certified Coach) requires 125 hours of training, 500 hours of coaching experience (450 with paying clients), 10 hours of mentor coaching, passing the CKA, and ICF membership. These are pathways to becoming a qualified coach. CCE Units (Continuing Coach Education) are ongoing education credits for coaches who already hold ICF credentials. They are designed to keep certified coaches updated on new methods and maintain their existing credentials. CCE units cannot be used as a pathway to initial certification - they presume you already have the foundation. The difference is like paying for a university degree versus receiving audit credits - you attended the lectures, but you cannot graduate with CCE units alone. If a training provider markets their course as a pathway to ICF accreditation but only provides CCE units, this is a fundamental misrepresentation. Students receive continuing education when they paid for initial qualification, leaving them unable to practise as credentialed coaches despite the investment of thousands of pounds and significant time.

Question 2

What does the ICF regulate and what is outside their remit?

Accepted Answer

The International Coaching Federation (ICF) has specific regulatory authority over coaching standards and ethics, but business decisions remain outside their jurisdiction. What the ICF DOES regulate: training standards for ICF Accredited Coach Training Programs (ACTPs), credentialing requirements for ACC, PCC, and MCC levels, ethical conduct specifically related to coaching practice, accurate representation of ICF credentials and accreditation status, and professional standards for coaches holding ICF credentials. What the ICF DOES NOT regulate: business decisions made by individual coaches or training providers, pricing structures or refund policies, scheduling practices or accessibility accommodations, customer service approaches or communication styles, and general commercial disputes between providers and students. The ICF ensures coaches are trained properly and meet credentialing standards. However, decisions that coaches make in running their businesses - including how they schedule sessions, structure their programmes, or handle customer complaints - are not within the ICF's remit. This means the ICF can investigate whether a provider misrepresented their accreditation status, review whether training meets ACTP standards, and examine whether ethical standards around transparency were breached. However, the ICF cannot force providers to offer refunds, mandate specific accessibility accommodations, or dictate business practices like scheduling. This is why students experiencing issues with coaching training need to use multiple complaint channels: ICF Ethics Complaints for training standards and ethical violations, and Consumer Rights Act protections or Trading Standards for business and commercial disputes including refunds, misrepresentation of services, and inaccessible remedies.

Question 3

What is the Neurodivergent Tax in coaching education?

Accepted Answer

The Neurodivergent Tax (ND Tax) refers to the hidden costs - financial, emotional, and temporal - that neurodivergent people pay when navigating professional systems not built for them. In coaching education specifically, the ND Tax includes: extra time spent researching providers to find ones who claim to understand neurodivergence, paying premium prices for 'neurodivergent-friendly' services that may not deliver on accessibility promises, additional energy advocating for access needs that should be standard, time and emotional labour fixing problems caused by providers who promised inclusion but didn't deliver accessible systems, managing the emotional fallout when systems fail you (particularly painful for those with Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria common in ADHD), pursuing complaints and remedies through channels that neurotypical people never have to navigate, and the psychological impact of having your disability-related needs used against you as evidence you're 'difficult' or 'too much'. The ND Tax is particularly insidious in spaces marketed as neurodivergent-friendly because there's an assumption of safety - 'they're one of us, so it'll be fine' - that prevents due diligence and makes the eventual failure feel like betrayal. Many neurodivergent coaches specifically seek out training from neurodivergent providers to avoid this tax, only to discover that being neurodivergent doesn't automatically make someone a good provider for other neurodivergent people. Representation without accessibility is performance, not inclusion. The financial component of the ND Tax in this case was £6,800 for training that didn't deliver the promised credential, plus the cost of pursuing formal complaints. The temporal cost was a year of study that cannot be recovered. The emotional cost for someone with Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria is immeasurable - systemic rejection triggers intense emotional pain that neurotypical people may not understand or validate.

Question 4

How do I verify if a coaching training program is ICF accredited?

Accepted Answer

Before enrolling in any coaching training programme and paying thousands of pounds, you must verify accreditation status in writing. Here's how to protect yourself: First, ask the provider directly and in writing: What exactly will I receive upon completion? (ICF Level 1/ACC pathway, ICF Level 2/PCC pathway, CCE units only, or non-ICF certification?). Is this programme an ICF Accredited Coach Training Program (ACTP)? If yes, ask for the specific ICF ACTP number. Second, independently verify on the ICF website at https://coachingfederation.org/app/index.cfm?fuseaction=Education.VerifyProvider. Search for the provider by name and check their current ACTP status - accreditation can lapse, so 'used to be accredited' is not the same as 'currently accredited'. Third, understand vague marketing language that signals problems: 'ICF-aligned' is not the same as ICF-accredited, 'working towards accreditation' means they don't have it yet, 'internationally recognised' is meaningless without specifying by whom, and 'professional coaching certification' doesn't specify whose standards. Fourth, get everything in writing before paying. Verbal assurances are not enforceable under UK Consumer Rights Act. Request written confirmation of: what credential you'll receive, whether it's an ACTP programme with current number, what happens if they fail to deliver, what the refund policy is, and whether remedies offered are accessible in the same format as the original course. Fifth, speak to past students, particularly neurodivergent students if you're neurodivergent, and ask: Did you achieve the credentials you enrolled for? Were access needs respected? Was the complaints process accessible if issues arose? If a provider reacts defensively to these verification questions, that defensive reaction IS your answer - walk away. Legitimate providers welcome due diligence because they have nothing to hide.

Question 5

What are my rights under UK Consumer Rights Act if coaching training was misrepresented?

Accepted Answer

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, UK consumers have significant protections when services are not as described or not fit for purpose. Key protections that apply to coaching training include: Services must match their description - if a provider marketed their course as an ICF accreditation pathway but delivered only CCE units, this may constitute misrepresentation. Services must be performed with reasonable care and skill - training must meet professional standards and deliver what was promised. Services must be fit for the particular purpose - if you told the provider you needed ICF accreditation to practise as a coach and they confirmed their course would provide this, the service must achieve that purpose. If a service doesn't match what was agreed, you have the right to ask the trader to repeat or fix the service at no extra cost. The fix must be done within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience. Critically, if the offered remedy is inaccessible to you (for example, mentor coaching scheduled at times you cannot attend due to disability, caring responsibilities, or other protected characteristics), this may not constitute a valid remedy under the Act. If it's not possible to fix the service, or if the fix doesn't resolve the issue, you can request a price reduction or full refund. The refund may be the full amount if the service was fundamentally not as described. To pursue your rights: document everything in writing (emails, course materials, marketing materials that influenced your purchase decision), clearly state what was promised versus what was delivered, request a remedy in writing with reasonable timeframe, if remedy is inaccessible, state why and request alternative, escalate to formal complaint if provider doesn't respond appropriately. You can also contact Citizens Advice (https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/) for free guidance, contact Trading Standards to report the provider, or consider small claims court for amounts up to £10,000. Keep all documentation of: original course marketing materials, written communications with provider, payment receipts, what was delivered versus promised, accessibility barriers to offered remedies, impact on your ability to work as a coach.

Question 6

What is Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria and why does it matter in this situation?

Accepted Answer

Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD) is a common feature of ADHD where perceived rejection, criticism, or failure triggers intense, overwhelming emotional pain that is disproportionate to the situation from an external perspective but feels utterly unbearable to the person experiencing it. RSD is not about being 'too sensitive' - it's a neurological difference in how the ADHD brain processes social and emotional information. For someone with RSD, experiences that neurotypical people might find frustrating become emotionally devastating. In the context of coaching training failure, RSD transforms what might be a 'disappointing business dispute' for a neurotypical person into a experience of systemic rejection that can be genuinely traumatic. Here's why it matters: When a provider promises inclusion but delivers inaccessible systems, the RSD response is intense emotional pain that others may dismiss as 'overreacting'. When offered remedies are inaccessible (for example, mentor coaching scheduled at times you cannot attend), this feels like being told your needs are 'too much' - a core RSD trigger. When the provider is also neurodivergent, the sense of betrayal is worse - you specifically sought them out for safety and understanding. When you try to advocate for yourself and are met with defensiveness or dismissal, RSD interprets this as confirmation that you're fundamentally defective. When your ADHD-related emotional dysregulation in response to this rejection is used as evidence you're 'difficult', this creates a vicious cycle where the disability itself is weaponised against you. The emotional impact for someone with RSD is not just frustration about £6,800 and wasted time - it's a profound sense of being fundamentally unacceptable, even in spaces that claimed to be built for you. This is why accessible remedies matter so much: for a neurotypical person, 'just attend mentor coaching at these times' might be an inconvenience. For someone with RSD and ADHD, being told the only solution is inaccessible feels like proof that you don't deserve help, that you're too broken even for systems designed for broken people. This isn't melodrama - this is the lived reality of RSD. Providers marketing to neurodivergent people must understand this and build genuinely accessible systems, not just use neurodivergent identity as a marketing tool.

Question 7

What should I do if I've been misled by a coaching training provider?

Accepted Answer

If you believe a coaching training provider misrepresented their course, particularly around ICF accreditation status, take these systematic steps to protect your rights and seek remedy. First, document everything immediately: save all marketing materials you saw before enrolling (website screenshots, social media posts, email promotions), keep all written communications with the provider (emails, messages, contracts), photograph or save all course materials showing what was actually delivered, document any verbal promises in writing ('As discussed on [date], you stated that [X]'), record details of any accessibility barriers you've experienced, and calculate your total financial investment including course fees, travel, materials, time off work. Second, attempt direct resolution in writing: send formal email to provider clearly stating what was promised versus what was delivered, specify the harm caused (financial, professional, emotional), request specific remedy with deadline (refund, accessible make-up training, credential pathway), keep tone professional and factual, and keep copy of everything sent. Third, if direct resolution fails or remedy offered is inaccessible, file formal complaints through appropriate channels: ICF Ethics Complaint if provider is ICF-credentialed or runs ACTP programmes (file at https://coachingfederation.org/ethics/ethics-complaints, focus on misrepresentation of accreditation, transparency violations, ethical obligations around accurate marketing, NOT business practices or scheduling), Consumer Rights Act complaint through Citizens Advice or Trading Standards (focus on services not as described, failure to deliver fit-for-purpose training, inaccessible remedies, refund rights), Trading Standards report (especially if misrepresentation affects multiple students), and Small Claims Court for amounts up to £10,000 if other routes fail. Fourth, protect others by speaking out appropriately: write honest review on Trustpilot or Google (stick to facts, avoid defamation), share experience in coaching communities to warn others (focus on systemic issues not personal attacks), contact coaching industry publications if pattern affects multiple people, and consider whether formal complaint to advertising standards is warranted if marketing was misleading. Fifth, seek support for the emotional impact: connect with other neurodivergent coaches who may have experienced similar, access therapy or coaching that understands RSD and systemic ableism, document the emotional toll for any disability discrimination claims, and remember that your emotional response to systemic rejection is valid and not evidence you're 'too much'. Important legal notes: Do not name providers publicly until complaints are resolved unless you have strong documented evidence. Focus on systemic issues rather than personal attacks. Keep all records for minimum 6 years. Seek legal advice if amounts exceed small claims threshold. Remember: you are not alone, this is not your fault, your needs are not 'too much', and speaking out protects the next person.

Question 8

What red flags should I watch for when choosing coaching training?

Accepted Answer

Before investing thousands of pounds in coaching training, watch for these warning signs that indicate potential problems. Red flags around credentials and accreditation: Vague language like 'ICF-aligned' instead of 'ICF-accredited' (these are completely different - aligned means nothing), 'working towards accreditation' means they don't have it yet so you're taking a risk, 'internationally recognised' without specifying by whom is meaningless marketing, 'professional coaching certification' that doesn't specify whose standards or what you can actually do with the qualification, refusing to provide ICF ACTP number in writing, defensive reactions when asked for verification details, past students who didn't receive the credentials they expected. Red flags around transparency and communication: No clear written information about what credential you'll receive, avoiding specific questions about accreditation with vague reassurances, pressure to enrol quickly before you've had time to verify claims, 'limited spaces' urgency tactics designed to prevent due diligence, discounts that expire imminently to rush your decision, no written answers to important questions (only verbal), changing information between marketing materials and enrolment contract, 'trust me, I'm neurodivergent too' instead of clear documentation. Red flags around accessibility and inclusion: No information about session format or timing before you pay, vague answers about accommodations ('we'll work it out as we go'), no written accessibility policy despite marketing to neurodivergent people, 'one size fits all' scheduling with no flexibility, marketing inclusion but no evidence of accessible systems, claiming to be 'neurodivergent-friendly' but showing irritation at questions about access needs, assuming that because the provider is neurodivergent their systems are automatically accessible, 'just try to make it work' attitude when you raise access barriers. Red flags around business practices: No clear refund policy in writing, no accessible complaints process, defensive or dismissive responses to concerns, pressure to accept remedies that don't actually solve the problem, 'take it or leave it' attitude when you raise issues, threats or intimidation when you mention complaints, using your disability against you ('you're being too sensitive' when raising RSD concerns), no professional insurance or business registration details visible. Red flags around pricing and value: Price significantly higher than comparable programmes without clear justification, hidden costs that emerge after enrolment, payment plans that lock you in before you know what you're getting, no comparison to market rates for similar training, 'investment in yourself' language to justify unreasonable costs. Trust your gut: if something feels off during the research phase, it probably is. Legitimate providers welcome due diligence because they have nothing to hide. If asking verification questions makes a provider defensive, that defensive reaction IS your answer - walk away and find a provider who values transparency as much as you do.

Question 9

Can a neurodivergent-run training provider still fail neurodivergent students?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Being neurodivergent does not automatically make someone a good provider for other neurodivergent people. This is a critical lesson that many neurodivergent students learn too late, often at significant financial and emotional cost. Understanding why this happens protects you from making assumptions that could cost thousands of pounds. Representation without accessibility is performance, not inclusion. A provider can be autistic, ADHD, or otherwise neurodivergent and still: fail to build accessible systems that work for neurodivergent people beyond themselves, prioritise their own access needs and communication style while being inflexible about others', use neurodivergent identity as marketing without following through on inclusive practice, dismiss complaints as 'just different neurotypes clashing' instead of taking accountability, weaponise shared identity to avoid accountability ('I'm ND too so I understand' while not actually accommodating), create systems that work for their specific neurotype but not others (autism and ADHD have different needs), assume that because something works for them it must work for all ND people, lack business infrastructure and systems thinking despite having lived experience, struggle with the same executive function challenges as students leading to disorganised systems, fail to separate their own trauma responses from professional obligations. The 'ND provider = safe space' assumption creates several problems: False sense of safety prevents due diligence (you don't ask hard questions because 'they get it'), shared identity makes eventual failure feel like personal betrayal not just business dispute, difficult to advocate for your needs without feeling you're criticising ND community, provider may use your complaints as evidence you're not 'really' ND or not 'ND enough', RSD makes any pushback from 'one of us' exponentially more painful, harder to speak out publicly because you don't want to harm ND providers generally. What actually makes a provider good for neurodivergent students: Clear written communication (not just verbal), documented policies on accessibility and accommodations, flexible systems that can adapt to different ND presentations (not just one neurotype), proper business infrastructure (contracts, refund policies, complaints processes), separation of personal ND experience from professional service delivery, willingness to be accountable when systems fail, understanding that ND students may need different things than the provider does, accessible remedies not just accessible initial course, transparency about what they can and cannot provide, professional boundaries (being ND doesn't make you automatically qualified in all ND areas), evidence of accessible systems in practice not just inclusive marketing language. Before choosing an ND provider: Ask ND past students about their actual experience (not just the provider's claims), verify business systems exist (contracts, policies, insurance), check if they welcome hard questions or get defensive, ensure written documentation of all promises and commitments, don't let shared identity override due diligence, remember that good intentions don't equal accessible systems, trust actions not identity, verify that their systems accommodate ND needs beyond their own specific presentation. Bottom line: Choose providers based on demonstrated accessible systems and clear business practices, not identity alone. An ND provider who welcomes verification questions is safer than one who says 'trust me, I'm one of you'.

Question 10

Why is £6,800 a significant loss for neurodivergent coaches?

Accepted Answer

£6,800 represents far more than money when you're a neurodivergent person investing in professional development - it's a compound loss across multiple dimensions that neurotypical people may not fully understand. The financial impact for many neurodivergent people: ADHD and autism are associated with lower average lifetime earnings due to employment discrimination, difficulties navigating neurotypical workplaces, and gaps in employment history. £6,800 might represent months of savings for someone managing inconsistent income, chronic health conditions that limit work capacity, or caring responsibilities common in ND families. Many neurodivergent people are self-employed because traditional employment is inaccessible - coaching training was supposed to create sustainable self-employment. That £6,800 cannot be easily recovered when executive dysfunction, burnout, or disability already limit earning capacity. The money was often borrowed, taken from emergency funds, or represents sacrifice of other necessities. Neurodivergent people experience higher rates of poverty and financial insecurity, making large financial losses devastating. The temporal impact compounds the financial: A year of focused study requires enormous executive function for someone with ADHD. That time cannot be recovered and represents delayed entry into the profession, delayed income generation, delayed business building, and lost momentum that's incredibly hard to rebuild with ADHD. The emotional and psychological impact: For someone with Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria, this loss triggers intense shame ('I'm stupid for trusting them'), sense of failure that's disproportionate to circumstances, fear of trying again because the pain of failing twice would be unbearable, erosion of self-trust ('I made a terrible decision'), and confirmation of negative self-beliefs ('I'm not capable of professional success'). The loss feels like proof that professional spaces aren't for you, even when you try to access ND-specific spaces. The professional impact: Without the qualification, you cannot get professional indemnity insurance, cannot market yourself as ICF-credentialed coach, may not be taken seriously by clients who expect credentials, lose competitive advantage in saturated coaching market, cannot access certain client groups (corporate, government) that require credentials, and experience impostor syndrome even when you have the skills because you lack formal recognition. The opportunity cost: £6,800 and a year could have funded therapy for ADHD/autism, purchased assistive technology, created financial buffer reducing stress, funded proper ADHD medication, invested in actually accessible training, built business infrastructure, paid for childcare to free up work time. The trust impact: Harder to trust any provider in future, increased hypervigilance that's exhausting with ADHD, reluctance to invest in self-development again, isolation from professional community due to wariness, difficulty distinguishing safe from unsafe opportunities, cynicism that prevents accessing genuinely good services. The systemic impact: Confirms that even 'inclusive' spaces aren't built for you, reinforces learned helplessness ('there's no point trying'), contributes to trauma around professional development, adds to cumulative burden of marginalization, creates barrier to future professional growth due to financial and emotional depletion. For someone managing ADHD, autism, chronic pain, mental health conditions, and financial precarity, £6,800 isn't just money. It's proof that the system is rigged against you even when you do everything right - research carefully, choose an ND provider, invest in yourself, work hard, advocate for your needs. And you still get locked out. That's why £6,800 is too high a price for a 'lesson learned' - because the lesson shouldn't be 'don't trust anyone' or 'professional development isn't for people like you'. The lesson should be that systems must be accountable, providers must deliver what they promise, and neurodivergent people deserve accessible remedies when things go wrong.

The £6,800 Paperweight: When “Inclusive” Coaching Education Fails Neurodivergent Coaches

What I Thought I Was Buying vs What I Actually Received

The Heartbreak of the “Inaccessible Remedy”

The “Neurodivergent Tax” Nobody Talks About

What This Exposes About the Coaching Industry

What I’m Doing About It (And What You Can Do Too)

Understanding What the ICF Can (and Cannot) Do

Due Diligence Checklist Before Enrolling

Red Flags to Watch For

What the Coaching Industry Needs to Change

To My Fellow Neurodivergent Coaches

Why I’m Speaking Out

The Bottom Line

Resources & Next Steps

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Contact