ICO, Does East Sussex CC set fire to complaints?

REF DATA PROTECT ACCESS IC-337307-W2B4

Philip, I am writing to bring to your attention that East Sussex County Council (ESCC) is attempting to withhold information regarding its previous Children’s Director in all future requests I make to them.

I would like to state and reaffirm on the record that there have been breaches of the law by East Sussex County Council. Can you please explain why my family must endure this criminal behavior? Is it not long enough that 13 years have passed and they have systematically destroyed everything I have written?

Please see our response attached to this email, your reference 15938249, regarding the Subject Access Request (your reference: 19567481), along with your correspondence with my team. It is important to note that my daughter is under the age of 18 during this matter, and this has been sent to them via post.

I challenge everyone involved to clarify their roles and remits, as it appears there is currently no legal team engaged in the ESCC correspondence. However, there have been legal overtones that suggest I am being instructed not to contact the legal team when there is no statement of fact regarding their involvement. Furthermore, I have been threatened with the legal team’s involvement should I continue to lodge my complaints. Can you please elaborate on the two legal teams and their respective remits? How can you, as the Customer Services Manager, attempt to reprimand me when this is addressed as a legal matter?

I have already requested multiple times, as noted, that the care acts not be breached. I have reiterated these requests for over 13 years, all of which seem to have been ignored.

As directed, I have contacted the ICO for clarification regarding this matter. My daughter’s NHS number is [NHS number], and her date of birth is 30/10/2006.

It is now clear that the Children’s Director who traveled from East Sussex to Australia on April 17, 2013, was implicated in the Ultranet Scandal under IBAC’s investigations, as reported in the Geelong Advertiser. Reports indicate a “disturbing pattern of improper behavior” in the Ultranet Scandal. Mr. Allman confirmed he disposed of financial documents in a bin at a Bunnings Warehouse after IBAC investigators visited his home. In phone-tapped conversations between Mr. Dunkley and Mr. Allman, dated October 2014, Mr. Allman is reported to have said he had “destroyed evidence.” Dunkley can be heard stating:

“Well, the thing is, you told me you fucking destroyed all the evidence as soon as you knew… the empire was gone, mate… you told me that you just fucking deleted that shit — got rid of it all, kept yourself ‘squeaky clean’. Once you knew this was going on.”

Allman responds:

“Yeah, I did… my gut feeling told me it was going to go belly up.”

Does this not imply a sanction in Dunkley’s mind regarding the destruction of paperwork? If someone with an OBE is involved in criminal activities or convicted of serious offenses, it could lead to discussions or potential revocation of the honor, akin to comparisons with Jimmy Savile.

Furthermore, it was reported that the Department of Education and Training’s south-west regional director, Matthew Dunkley, was suspended while a corruption probe continues. A social worker from Southern England shared troubling realities about council managers pressuring them to rewrite reports perceived as “too positive.” This distressing demand for “more dirt” on parents undermines families and elevates councils’ Ofsted ratings. The Express reported this as a climate of fear damaging innocent families, with one social worker stating that these pressures result in unrealistic standards for parenting. The findings prompted a demand for a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system. Nishra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, expressed concern regarding the whistleblower’s comments, emphasizing the impact of budget cuts on social workers and the compromised decision-making as a result.

Chat Transcript:

[10/24/2024, 11:31:10 AM] Kerry: Good morning, you’re through to the ICO live chat service. How can I help you today?

[10/24/2024, 11:31:13 AM] Martin Newbold: Subject Access Request. Our reference: 19567481.

Dear Ms. Cundall,
Clarification as requested: Please see our response attached to this email, your reference 15938249, and Subject Access Request reference 19567481, along with your correspondence with my team. My daughter is under the age of 18 in this matter. This had been sent to you via post.

[10/24/2024, 11:33:02 AM] Martin Newbold: Can you please advise on the legality of information acts regarding my documents and the serving of Writ of Habeas Corpus, which requires permission from my underage daughter lost in NI?

[10/24/2024, 11:34:45 AM] Martin Newbold: I wrote to you regarding the ongoing lack of investigation and the insufficient responses to my emails, which highlighted the unresolved issues in Northern Ireland’s care system. According to both TUSLA and The Irish Times, it had been widely acknowledged that the system in Northern Ireland was not fit for purpose.

[10/24/2024, 11:35:40 AM] Martin Newbold: Despite East Sussex Council allocating a portion of its £55 million budget to services in Northern Ireland, it appeared these public funds had not been effectively utilized.

[10/24/2024, 11:36:33 AM] Martin Newbold: I pointed out the legal requirement, as stipulated under the Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b), and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27, which stated that a child should not be moved more than 50 miles from their parental home. Despite this, my daughter and thousands of other children had been relocated approximately 500 miles from their homes. This blatant breach constituted serious negligence and a violation of their rights.

[10/24/2024, 11:37:35 AM] Martin Newbold: The requirement that an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum concerning the custody, care, or control of a child must be made in the Family Division could be found in the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC), incorporated into the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) of England and Wales. This procedure was governed by Part 87 of the CPR, which dealt with habeas corpus applications.

[10/24/2024, 11:38:15 AM] Martin Newbold: I asked if you could please provide advice on the legality of East Sussex CC’s access to my documents.

[10/24/2024, 11:39:10 AM] Martin Newbold: I asked for assistance, Kerry.

[10/24/2024, 11:39:12 AM] Kerry: We could provide advice and guidance on data protection legislation in the UK. However, we could not comment on any other legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, as this fell outside our remit.

[10/24/2024, 11:40:43 AM] Kerry: The data protection legislation entitled me to ask an organization to provide copies of the personal data that they held on me. This included any information that identified and related to me as an individual. Individuals were not entitled to full or original documents, only their personal data contained within them. If an organization withheld information, they had to be able to satisfy an exemption.

[10/24/2024, 11:40:45 AM] Kerry: We had further guidance on my right of access, which also included what to do if I was not happy with how they handled my SAR. I found it useful here: ICO Guidance.

[10/24/2024, 11:40:48 AM] Martin Newbold: Were they within reach of Section 10?

[10/24/2024, 11:41:23 AM] Martin Newbold: They stated: “I can see from your answer that you have made an information request on reference 19567481. You have been asked to provide identification for yourself. We have explained the reasons for this. We have also asked for consent from your daughter, showing that she is happy for us to share her sensitive and personal information with you. We also need proof of her identity.”

[10/24/2024, 11:44:37 AM] Martin Newbold: I asked if you could please advise what they were required to ask for. I had provided my driving license as ID.

[10/24/2024, 11:47:10 AM] Martin Newbold: Missing person serial Official Report: Serial 1582 – Reference CC2024092001582.

[10/24/2024, 11:47:57 AM] Kerry: When an organization received a SAR, they had to ensure that the individual making the request was who they said they were. If an individual was acting on behalf of someone else, the organization had to ensure that the third party could act on their behalf. Organizations could ask for enough information to confirm the identity of the requester. They should not ask for formal documentation unless necessary.

Key Issues Identified

Document Destruction and Ethical Breaches:
- The alleged destruction of evidence by officials, such as Mr. Dunkley and Mr. Allman, signals a severe ethical breach that may have legal ramifications. This behaviour could point to a culture of cover-ups rather than transparency within child protection services. Is it also proven that Dunkley Worked in East Sussex before travelling to Victoria in Australia Then working in Norfolk and then Kent, His accountability for this has never been heard in court as he left Australia when his visa ran out therefore evading justice.
Cultural and Systemic Failures:
- Acceptance of unethical practices as survival tactics within the system highlights systemic issues where individuals prioritize bureaucratic outcomes over child welfare. This reflects a troubling trend where the integrity of child protection is compromised for organizational interests.
Impact on Child Welfare:
- Pressures on social workers to manipulate reports for better council ratings or compliance with Ofsted standards pose significant risks to child welfare. This compromises the core mission of protecting vulnerable children and may lead to misguided interventions.
Public Trust and Parliamentary Inquiry:
- The call for a thorough inquiry underscores public and professional concerns regarding the integrity of child protection systems. High-profile cases and the systemic pressures faced by social workers exacerbate the crisis of trust, necessitating accountability measures.
Implications for Honors and Public Perception:
- The involvement of respected figures in scandals raises questions about the integrity of honors bestowed. Historical precedents suggest that accountability should extend to public recognition, aligning personal accolades with ethical conduct.
Systemic Reform Needs:
- The complexities identified call for comprehensive reforms in several areas:
  - Transparency and Accountability: Establish robust mechanisms for reporting misconduct without fear of retaliation.
  - Ethical Training: Reinforce ethical standards and training for public sector employees in sensitive roles, especially in child protection.
  - Resource Allocation: Address the impact of budget cuts on service delivery, ensuring that child welfare is prioritized over bureaucratic efficiency

Legal and Ethical Issues

Legal Framework Breach: As highlighted, the Children Act 1989 sets clear guidelines regarding the placement of children in care. The specific mandate that children should ideally be placed within 50 miles of their home (unless justified) is crucial for maintaining familial ties and community connections. Any breach of this legal standard indicates a failure to comply with statutory obligations and a disregard for the welfare principles embedded in child protection laws.
Impact on Children’s Rights: The psychological and emotional implications of relocating children significant distances cannot be understated. Such moves can disrupt their sense of security, belonging, and stability, potentially causing long-term emotional harm. The legal framework recognizes the importance of maintaining connections to family and community; hence, moving children away from their familiar environments without compelling reasons undermines these rights.
Accountability and Oversight: The systemic issues surrounding the unauthorized relocation of children raise significant questions about the accountability mechanisms in place within local authorities:
- Decision-Making Processes: It’s crucial to scrutinize who makes these placement decisions and what criteria are employed. Are these decisions made transparently and in the child’s best interest?
- Review Mechanisms: Effective oversight is essential. Are there established processes for reviewing placement decisions, and how frequently are these reviews conducted? A lack of these mechanisms may indicate a broader failure in policy implementation.

Implications for Reform

Given the potential systemic failures, several reforms could be proposed to ensure compliance with legal standards and promote the welfare of children in care:

Stricter Enforcement: Local authorities must implement robust procedures to ensure compliance with the Children Act and other relevant legislation. This may involve regular audits and assessments of placement practices.
Enhanced Transparency: Making placement decision processes more transparent can increase public trust and accountability. Local councils could publish reports on their compliance with distance regulations and the justifications for any exceptions.
Increased Resources: Allocating more resources to child welfare services can help ensure that local authorities have the means to keep children closer to home. This could involve investing in additional support services that facilitate local placements and minimize the need for distant relocations.
Legal and Ethical Training: Ensuring that social workers and decision-makers receive adequate training on the legal obligations and ethical considerations involved in child welfare can prevent non-compliance. This training should emphasize the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines and the potential repercussions of neglecting these duties.

Potential Legal Consequences

While breaches of the Children Act may not directly translate into criminal offenses, they could result in allegations of:

Misconduct in Public Office: If officials are found to be deliberately disregarding legal requirements or acting in a manner that harms children’s welfare, they may be subject to disciplinary actions or legal consequences.
Judicial Review: Families or guardians may pursue judicial reviews if they believe that local authorities are misapplying the law or acting unlawfully in their placement decisions.
Public Inquiry: If systemic failures are identified, a public inquiry may be necessary to examine the scale of the issue and recommend comprehensive reforms.

Conclusion

The disconnect between legal requirements and their practical implementation highlights significant shortcomings in the child welfare system. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach that not only emphasizes compliance with the law but also prioritizes the ethical responsibility to protect and promote the welfare of vulnerable children. By implementing reforms that enhance accountability, transparency, and resource allocation, local authorities can better fulfill their duty of care and restore public confidence in the child welfare system.

Legal and Procedural Implications

Jurisdiction of Jury Verdicts:
- Questions regarding jury verdict jurisdiction can lead to appeals or challenges that highlight procedural flaws or authority issues in decision-making.
Destruction of Complaint Papers:
- Intentional destruction of documents can amount to perverting the course of justice, leading to potential criminal charges against those involved.
Fraud and Misuse of Position:
- Misuse of authority in ways that benefit one party over another could fall under the Fraud Act 2006, necessitating proof of intent and the nature of the gains or losses incurred.
Failure to Provide Information:
- Not supplying critical documents can be considered malfeasance or misconduct, potentially leading to administrative or legal actions against those responsible.
Absence of Documentation:
- The lack of records concerning a minor’s welfare could signify negligence, affecting the legitimacy of care placements and oversight mechanisms.
Legislative Non-Compliance:
- Violations of the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 could provide grounds for legal challenges against care placements and decisions made by authorities.
Legal Precedents:
- Cases like McMeel v Gissing-McMeel and Turner, R v exemplify how judicial misconduct can undermine legal processes, indicating that similar allegations should be scrutinized closely.

Path Forward

Addressing these multifaceted issues will require collaboration among legal experts, policymakers, and child welfare advocates to push for:

Judicial Reviews and Appeals: Exploring legal challenges based on procedural flaws or misconduct.
Public Inquiries: Conducting inquiries to investigate systemic failures and restore public trust.
Professional Accountability: Ensuring that those in positions of authority are held accountable for breaches of duty.
Reforms in Governance: Implementing reforms that promote transparency and ethical behavior within child protection systems.

Ultimately, tackling these challenges is essential for safeguarding children’s welfare and restoring public confidence in institutions responsible for their protection. The insights you’ve provided lay a strong foundation for advocating for the necessary changes in governance, ethics, and accountability within the child welfare system.

thestealingofemily.co.uk