Original letters · MPs · Government departments
Letters and official answers about Grafton Close Children’s Home, the protection of children in Richmond’s care and my continuing efforts to obtain records, explanations and accountability.
Official statements are presented with their dates and sources. What an office said is distinct from whether the underlying safeguarding question was resolved. I have retained the original correspondence privately and publish carefully prepared copies where appropriate.
Dated correspondence · 2020–2026
These are the exchanges and official responses currently documented in this archive, arranged in date order. Each entry explains what the source establishes and what it does not. Not every exchange formed one continuous correspondence chain; different officials may have been addressing different representations.
I raised concerns about Grafton Close, the council’s response and historical records. My messages are preserved in the original correspondence thread, but the private details in that thread are not reproduced in the public extract.
What remains open: What action Richmond took in response to every issue raised at this stage is not established by the public extract alone.
See the subsequent published MP reply ↗Wilson wrote that she had contacted Richmond’s Chief Executive seeking assurances of a proper investigation and had forwarded my correspondence to the MP representing my home constituency.
What remains open: The published reply does not contain a copy of the Chief Executive’s answer or prove what internal examination followed.
Read the redacted MP reply ↗Ian Dodds replied on behalf of Richmond’s Chief Executive, described the historical care records as very limited and directed the matter towards a named children’s-services contact, a subject access route and a potential civil letter of claim.
What remains open: This letter does not identify the full surviving records inventory or establish that every relevant staff and safeguarding document had been searched. It should not be assumed to answer Wilson’s separate approach.
Read Richmond’s redacted letter ↗Davies wrote again to the council, specifically seeking the “green sheets”, former social worker’s notes and material reportedly made available to police during Operation Fernbridge.
What remains open: The MP’s letter records requests and reported information; it does not prove those particular records exist or were supplied to the police.
Read the MP’s redacted follow-up ↗Following a meeting on 25 April, Dodds apologised for difficulties in being heard, confirmed the central care-register placement dates and described renewed searches and plans to improve the council's response to non-recent child abuse. He expressed confidence that some personal records had been destroyed under the historical retention practice.
What remains open: The letter does not supply a destruction certificate, a complete records disposal audit or the results of all historic safeguarding searches.
Read the correspondence extract ↓Alex Chalk KC MP responded to Davies about costs and access to court transcripts, explaining the limits on ministerial intervention in judicial decisions and describing a proposed pilot for free sentencing remarks.
What remains open: The reply did not grant access to a full trial transcript; statements about the pilot reflected the position when the letter was written.
Read the two-page redacted ministerial letter ↗A written reply conveyed His Majesty’s concern and explained the constitutional limit on intervention.
View original letter and summary ↓A reply limited further substantive correspondence on the same issue, while confirming that subsequent letters would still be considered and logged.
Read document and context ↓No. 10 replied on behalf of the Prime Minister about Grafton Close, Richmond Council and the Metropolitan Police, and set out the limits of ministerial intervention.
Read document and context ↓Dodds described his review of surviving Grafton Close logbooks. He expressly clarified that the absence of the named former worker from those records was not a claim that she had never existed or worked there.
What remains open: Which earlier files were examined by police, when other records ceased to be traceable, and whether independent copies survive remain distinct questions.
Read the correspondence extract ↓Dodds distinguished the authority's central care register from the daily operational logbooks kept at individual children's homes. That distinction matters when interpreting claims that no 1984 Grafton home logbook was found.
What remains open: The care-register entry cannot substitute for the daily visitor, departure or supervision records that would bear on the historical safeguarding questions.
Read the correspondence extract ↓Dodds expressly distinguished the council's inability to locate an employment reference in its limited surviving collection from a claim that the former worker did not exist. He also said the available records did not answer what Richmond did to mitigate risks after the Stingemore case.
What remains open: Her precise employment dates and duties, source records and evidence of risk mitigation still require primary documents.
Read the correspondence extract ↓Dodds reported that records then available to him did not answer the specific historical risk-mitigation question. He also described work to improve Richmond's approach to responding to non-recent abuse.
What remains open: The lack of records identified in that search does not independently establish that no safeguarding measures existed, nor explain the full archive history.
Read the correspondence extract ↓In reply to a question about extending investigations across the home’s full operating period, the Home Office stated that Operation Fernbridge had closed and that decisions on further police investigations lay with the police.
What remains open: The answer did not provide a comprehensive record of all safeguarding failures or decide whether every relevant resident had been investigated or contacted.
Read the official Commons answer ↗In its response to a written question, the Department said the Government was not considering a separate inquiry into Richmond’s handling of Grafton Close safeguarding concerns and indicated that an assessment of Richmond’s response was for the council locally.
What remains open: That position did not constitute an independent review of the historical care records, individual complaints or the council’s handling of them.
Read the official Commons answer ↗Dodds confirmed referring the latest representations to the authority's insurance lawyers rather than providing a new substantive response in that message.
What remains open: The email does not explain what source records the council searched or resolve the legal and historical questions raised.
Read the correspondence extract ↓Dodds referred renewed requests for preservation and access to surviving Grafton Close and Rodney Road daily logbooks to Information Governance.
What remains open: The referral itself did not supply the surviving logbooks or confirm their current custodian.
Read the correspondence extract ↓Information Governance listed the linked Grafton Close / Rodney Road requests, including FOI 8699055KH, 8699064KH and 8699065KH, and said it had 12 FOI requests and two subject access requests active at that time.
What remains open: This acknowledgement neither provided the books nor established the adequacy of subsequent statutory responses.
Read the correspondence extract ↓The Department acknowledged a records request concerning historical MP representations and related Grafton Close ministerial or departmental holdings.
What remains open: Acknowledgement only; no conclusion on whether responsive historical records exist or will be disclosed.
Read the verified, privacy-screened email extract ↓The Commons acknowledged a request about historical parliamentary records relating to MPs Toby Jessel and Patrick Ground, Richmond social services and Grafton Close (1979–1986).
What remains open: This is an acknowledgement, not a disclosure decision. A substantive reply was awaited as at 20 October 2026.
Read the verified, privacy-screened email extract ↓The Home Office acknowledged a new information request relating to historical MP correspondence and Grafton Close / Richmond children's homes.
What remains open: No substantive response was included with the acknowledgement; 11 November 2026 was the stated target date.
Read the verified, privacy-screened email extract ↓Other correspondence is still being inventoried. The absence of a letter from this page is not evidence that it never existed or that a government body did not respond.
Parliamentary representations · 2020
These letters document concerns raised with elected representatives and the council’s response at the time. Redacted copies are available to read.
29 September 2020
Parliamentary constituency correspondence · Ref MW6940
The MP said she had written to Richmond Council’s Chief Executive seeking assurances that the concerns would be properly investigated, and had forwarded the correspondence to the constituent’s MP. This is her response only; an earlier personal email thread was excluded from the public copy.
View redacted original PDF ↗28 October 2020
Richmond Council · Children’s Services · Response on behalf of the Chief Executive
The Council described the small quantity of care records it said remained, identified a children’s-services contact and referred to the route for a civil letter of claim. The correspondence is preserved so its historical record position can be assessed against later disclosures.
View redacted original PDF ↗4 November 2020
Constituency representation · Ref DD4103
The MP asked Richmond Council to reconsider the records issue and specifically sought the former social worker’s notes, the “green sheets” and any relevant material reportedly made available during Operation Fernbridge. The constituent’s former address has been permanently covered in the public copy.
View redacted original PDF ↗Primary correspondence · 2024 and 2026
The original Buckingham Palace reply is reproduced below. The Home Office records are separate official government responses. The origin and limits of each document are labelled.
12 September 2024
The Correspondence Department, Buckingham Palace · original scanned letter
The Palace acknowledged correspondence about experiences of abuse and advocacy for survivors, conveyed the King’s concern and good wishes, and explained that the constitutional Sovereign could not intervene personally in the manner requested. It suggested contacting an MP.
Attribution: This is a response from Buckingham Palace conveying His Majesty’s views, not a personally signed letter from the King and not a government finding on the underlying allegations.
View original Buckingham Palace letter (PDF) ↗29 April 2026
Official House of Commons record · Grafton Close
The answer stated that Operation Fernbridge had closed and that decisions on further investigation were for the police. It did not resolve the full historic safeguarding questions.
Read the official Home Office answer and its parliamentary source ↓16 October 2026
Home Office case acknowledgement · not a substantive decision
The Home Office acknowledged an information request concerning historical parliamentary correspondence and children’s-home records. This is evidence of receipt and handling, not confirmation that the requested documents have been located.
Read the screened Home Office acknowledgement ↓Privacy note: The Buckingham Palace scan contains the recipient’s name but no home postal address. The King’s constitutional response is not presented as an investigation or legal finding.
Primary correspondence · October and December 2024
Two official replies about Grafton Close, child safeguarding and responses from public authorities. The text below is transcribed from copies of the letters, retaining dates, references and signatories. These documents establish the official correspondence, not the truth or legal status of the underlying allegations.
2 October 2024 · DECS reference TRO/1206112/24
Direct Communications Unit · A Gomes · reply to a message dated 21 September 2024
The Home Office confirmed earlier responses dated 19 and 22 August 2024, and said it would not continue to reply about the same issue where it had no new information. It explained that it could not intervene in individual cases, police decisions or court proceedings.
Important qualification: The letter also stated that later correspondence would continue to be considered by the relevant policy team and saved in the department’s tracking system. Its position on individual correspondence is not a finding that historical safeguarding concerns were addressed, or a refusal of statutory information rights.
Home Office — Direct Communications Unit
DECS reference: TRO/1206112/24 · 2 October 2024
Dear Mr Hinchliffe,
Thank you for your email of 21 September to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls regarding Tackling Child Sexual Abuse and your own personal experiences. Your email has been passed to the Direct Communications Unit for a response.
I note that we replied to you on 19 August (our reference: TRO/1172109/24) and 22 August (our reference: TRO/1177443/24) regarding the issues you have raised. A copy of our reply from 19 August and 22 August is enclosed for your reference.
I must advise you that the Home Office will no longer answer your correspondence on this issue where we are unable to provide any further information to the previous responses provided. This is because it is not practical for the department to continue to review the same details in any one case, especially where we are unable to comment on or intervene in cases, proceedings and police and judicial decisions. The contents of any written correspondence received from you will, however, continue to be considered by the relevant policy team and saved on our electronic correspondence tracking system.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Home Office.
Yours sincerely,
A Gomes · Direct Communications Unit
Accessible transcription of the supplied image; recipient email address and personal details omitted. No residential address is shown.
4 December 2024 · 10 Downing Street
Direct Communications Unit · signed Mandy Godridge · in reply to 15 August 2024 correspondence
No. 10 apologised for a delay, expressed sympathy regarding the account of abuse at Grafton Close, and explained that the Prime Minister could not direct the Metropolitan Police to widen or reopen investigations because policing decisions were independent of government.
Important qualification: The letter demonstrates receipt and an official response expressly mentioning Grafton Close, Richmond Council and the Metropolitan Police. It is not an independent determination of what happened at Grafton Close or of the council’s liability.
10 Downing Street — Head of the Direct Communications Unit
4 December 2024
Dear Mr Hinchliffe,
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of 15 August about your experience from Richmond upon Thames Council and the Metropolitan Police about your case. I sincerely apologise for the delay in replying.
I am very sorry to read that you were one of the victims of child abuse at Grafton Close. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the Prime Minister to instruct the Metropolitan Police to widen or revisit any of their investigations, as they are rightly independent of Government. I understand that you have been in touch with the Home Office, and I am afraid that I am not able to add anything further to the information that they have already provided to you.
Please note that the reason that the Prime Minister cannot get involved is not due to any lack of concern about the issues you have raised but a reflection of his role.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, please accept my best wishes and thank you, once again, for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Mandy Godridge
Accessible transcription of the signed reply; no private residential address is reproduced.
Outstanding questions: Neither letter examines the historical case records or establishes what Richmond knew, when it knew it, or what safeguarding actions were taken. These questions require the underlying records and independent scrutiny.
Ministerial reply · 2024
21 May 2024
Ministry of Justice · Reply to David T. C. Davies MP · Ref MC114526
Responding to parliamentary representations about access to Crown Court transcripts following the Saunders case, the Lord Chancellor explained that full trial transcripts attract independent transcription costs, that he could not intervene in a judicial decision and that a pilot scheme for free sentencing remarks was planned. The public copy contains both pages with my former address redacted.
View redacted ministerial letter (two pages) ↗Official replies · 2026
The following answers are already part of the public parliamentary record. They are linked directly to Parliament rather than rehosted as private correspondence.
29 April 2026
House of Commons · Written answer UIN 129882
The Home Office said Operation Fernbridge had closed and that whether to investigate further was an operational matter for police. This answer did not determine the full safeguarding history of the home.
Read the official parliamentary record ↗2 June 2026
House of Commons · Written answer UIN 2023
The Department said it was not considering a separate inquiry into Richmond’s handling of Grafton Close safeguarding concerns and referred assessment of the council’s response to the local authority.
Read the official parliamentary record ↗Richmond and Achieving for Children · 2024–2026
These extracts document what senior children’s services officials and information governance teams said about surviving records, historic safeguards and the response to requests. They are source-checked excerpts, not complete facsimiles. Quoted assertions are attributed to their authors, and missing evidence is identified rather than treated as proof of an event.
29 April 2024
Our meeting on 25 April 2024 · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Following a meeting on 25 April, Dodds apologised for difficulties in being heard, confirmed the central care-register placement dates and described renewed searches and plans to improve the council's response to non-recent child abuse. He expressed confidence that some personal records had been destroyed under the historical retention practice.
What remains open: The letter does not supply a destruction certificate, a complete records disposal audit or the results of all historic safeguarding searches.
Source: Outlook, original inbound email, 29 April 2024. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
28 August 2025 — morning
Re: Grafton Close Children's Home · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Dodds described his review of surviving Grafton Close logbooks. He expressly clarified that the absence of the named former worker from those records was not a claim that she had never existed or worked there.
What remains open: Which earlier files were examined by police, when other records ceased to be traceable, and whether independent copies survive remain distinct questions.
Source: Outlook, original inbound email, 28 August 2025, 08:19 UTC. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
28 August 2025 — later reply
Re: Grafton Close Children's Home · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Dodds distinguished the authority's central care register from the daily operational logbooks kept at individual children's homes. That distinction matters when interpreting claims that no 1984 Grafton home logbook was found.
What remains open: The care-register entry cannot substitute for the daily visitor, departure or supervision records that would bear on the historical safeguarding questions.
Source: Outlook, original inbound email, 28 August 2025, 13:15 UTC. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
15 September 2025
Grafton Close Children's Home · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Dodds expressly distinguished the council's inability to locate an employment reference in its limited surviving collection from a claim that the former worker did not exist. He also said the available records did not answer what Richmond did to mitigate risks after the Stingemore case.
What remains open: Her precise employment dates and duties, source records and evidence of risk mitigation still require primary documents.
Source: Outlook, original inbound email, 15 September 2025. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
30 September 2025
Re: Grafton Close Children's Home · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Dodds reported that records then available to him did not answer the specific historical risk-mitigation question. He also described work to improve Richmond's approach to responding to non-recent abuse.
What remains open: The lack of records identified in that search does not independently establish that no safeguarding measures existed, nor explain the full archive history.
Source: Outlook, original inbound email, 30 September 2025. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
7 August 2026
Re: Formal Request for Substantive Response · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Dodds confirmed referring the latest representations to the authority's insurance lawyers rather than providing a new substantive response in that message.
What remains open: The email does not explain what source records the council searched or resolve the legal and historical questions raised.
Source: Outlook, original inbound email, 7 August 2026. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
27 September 2026
Re: Follow-up to your 28 August 2025 review · Richmond Council / Achieving for Children
Dodds referred renewed requests for preservation and access to surviving Grafton Close and Rodney Road daily logbooks to Information Governance.
What remains open: The referral itself did not supply the surviving logbooks or confirm their current custodian.
Source: Hostinger INBOX, original message UID 6734. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
28 September 2026
Re: Follow-up to your 28 August 2025 review · Achieving for Children — Information Governance
Information Governance listed the linked Grafton Close / Rodney Road requests, including FOI 8699055KH, 8699064KH and 8699065KH, and said it had 12 FOI requests and two subject access requests active at that time.
What remains open: This acknowledgement neither provided the books nor established the adequacy of subsequent statutory responses.
Source: Hostinger INBOX, original message UID 6738. Redacted excerpt from official correspondence. Other email thread content and private material have not been reproduced.
2026 · Source-checked email correspondence
These are redacted email extracts reviewed against the messages in my connected mailboxes. They are not complete email facsimiles. Signatures, personal addresses, previous private exchanges, attachments and identifying information have been omitted. Each extract is provided with its immediate context and the question still outstanding.
15 October 2026
F26-475 Request acknowledgement · House of Commons
The Commons acknowledged a request about historical parliamentary records relating to MPs Toby Jessel and Patrick Ground, Richmond social services and Grafton Close (1979–1986).
What remains open: This is an acknowledgement, not a disclosure decision. A substantive reply was awaited as at 20 October 2026.
Source: Hostinger INBOX, message UID 7017. Privacy-screened excerpt from the first message in the correspondence; the full original and any attached or earlier emails are not reproduced.
15 October 2026
Department for Education FOI: 2026-0095414 · Department for Education
The Department acknowledged a records request concerning historical MP representations and related Grafton Close ministerial or departmental holdings.
What remains open: Acknowledgement only; no conclusion on whether responsive historical records exist or will be disclosed.
Source: Hostinger INBOX, message UID 7021. Privacy-screened excerpt from the first message in the correspondence; the full original and any attached or earlier emails are not reproduced.
16 October 2026
FOI2026/14647 – Keith Hinchliffe – 14th October – Home Office · Home Office
The Home Office acknowledged a new information request relating to historical MP correspondence and Grafton Close / Richmond children's homes.
What remains open: No substantive response was included with the acknowledgement; 11 November 2026 was the stated target date.
Source: Hostinger INBOX, message UID 7043. Privacy-screened excerpt from the first message in the correspondence; the full original and any attached or earlier emails are not reproduced.
Personal addresses are not published. The downloadable letter copies have been reconstructed from source pages as flattened images. Address details have been obscured, and private quoted email threads have been omitted where necessary. The full unredacted source files remain outside the public website.
What this archive includes: reviewed correspondence relating to Grafton Close, Richmond’s children’s services, police investigations and government scrutiny. Further items will be added as they are checked and safely prepared. A missing document on this page does not mean no correspondence took place.
Reading the documents: a reply, referral or acknowledgement establishes that correspondence occurred; it does not by itself establish that the complaint was investigated fully or that every concern was resolved.
Related primary documents: the FOI-redacted 1980 and 1982 Grafton Close daily logbooks are now available in a separate historical-records section, with the reproduced 1998 archive storage application. They are not parliamentary letters, and should not be treated as evidence of what happened during my 1984 placement.
If you can correct a date or identify another official response relevant to Grafton Close, please use the contact page. Do not send private information about other survivors through an unsecured channel.