Mandy Durkin
Complaints Advisor
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

25th October 2024

Dear Ms. Durkin,

I am compelled to write to you regarding the investigation associated with action number 24012899, a matter of utmost urgency and profound concern for my daughter’s well-being and legal rights. My previous requests for an expedited review and a clear indication of the merits of this investigation have not been adequately addressed, leaving me with serious doubts about the integrity of the processes in place.

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?

Furthermore, it is alarming that there has been no further communication from NICCY regarding potential breaches of the Care Acts, which raises serious questions about the duty of care owed to my daughter. Additionally, there has been no mention of any Habeas Corpus application, which is critical in ensuring her legal rights are upheld. This absence of response and action from NICCY is not only concerning but indicative of a systemic failure to protect vulnerable individuals within the care system.

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?

In addition to this letter, I have reached out to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to seek further clarification. However, the response I received from the NICCY office was unsatisfactory and troubling, particularly given that NICCY has never met my daughter. This glaring lack of engagement and transparency is unacceptable and undermines the very foundations of accountability and justice.

I must place on the public record my grave concerns about the information provided by NICCY, which strongly suggests that my daughter is being held in a prison environment. The legal framework surrounding her situation is critical, particularly in light of Section 49 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which states:

49 Interception in prisons
(1) Conduct taking place in a prison is authorised by this section if it is conduct in exercise of any power conferred by or under prison rules.

The designation of my daughter’s situation as being within a Category 2 prison, as delineated in the Annex, is alarming. It signifies that the interception of communications or conduct occurring is under the jurisdiction of prison rules. This raises severe concerns not only about the legality of her detention but also about the adequacy of her treatment and the safeguarding of her rights.

The NICCY’s inability to share pertinent information regarding the investigation under Category 2 is further troubling. Their correspondence states:

Category 2: This information cannot be disclosed due to the statutory prohibitions outlined in the 2016 Act, which protects the confidentiality of investigations conducted by the Ombudsman. This blanket refusal to disclose essential information is unacceptable and raises significant questions regarding the transparency of NICCY’s actions and the integrity of the investigation into my daughter’s circumstances.

Moreover, the complete lack of disclosure regarding my daughter’s criminal number and the nature of her alleged offenses is both concerning and unacceptable. This failure to provide basic information not only undermines the principles of transparency and accountability but also severely hampers my ability to advocate effectively for her. The absence of this crucial information obstructs our understanding of her legal standing and the validity of the processes applied to her case.

Additionally, I must highlight the implications of Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which states:

“There is no stand-alone right for an agency worker not to be subjected to a detriment for raising a health and safety issue. An agency worker may only bring a claim under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) for detriment on the grounds that they have raised health and safety concerns if they are an employee.”

The ramifications of these legal protections highlight the urgent need for NICCY to act responsibly and ethically in addressing the issues at hand. The failure to respond adequately, combined with the severe legal implications of this situation, raises serious questions about the integrity of the handling of my daughter’s case.

It is imperative that you take immediate action to rectify this situation. The gravity of my daughter’s circumstances cannot be overstated; she is a vulnerable individual whose rights are being potentially compromised. I expect a prompt, thorough, and transparent response to this letter, outlining the steps that will be taken to address these critical issues.

I trust you will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and act swiftly to ensure my daughter’s rights are upheld.

Yours Sincerely
Martin Newbold