Grafton Close · Original correspondence and evidence
Richmond Council’s defence — and why I dispute it
A documentary account of Richmond’s response to my civil negligence claim, the role of Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI), and the defence put forward through Browne Jacobson.
I was in Richmond’s care at Grafton Close in 1984. Philip Saunders was subsequently convicted of offences against me. My claim against Richmond is about the Council’s own safeguarding duty and what occurred when Saunders attended the children’s home and took me away. The claim is one of direct negligence, not vicarious liability for Saunders.
Public accountability · documented comparison
What Richmond says publicly — and how it responds to a survivor’s civil claim
These statements and letters were made at different times and for different purposes. Read together, they raise an important question about the relationship between public acknowledgement of historical safeguarding failures and the treatment of an individual survivor seeking civil accountability.
Public statement · 27 February 2015
Historical management condemned
Richmond’s then Chief Executive described the historical service leadership and management exposed in criminal proceedings concerning Grafton Close as “totally unacceptable”. The Council apologised in the context of those proceedings.
Source: Council Statements — 2015, with contemporary press sources →
Claim response · 18 October 2024
Earlier safeguards said to be irrelevant
In response to questions about measures following John Stingemore’s offences, Browne Jacobson said those questions were not relevant to my proposed claim because Saunders was a third party, rather than a member of staff. I dispute that conclusion: my claim concerns Richmond’s own safeguarding systems and the protection owed to a resident child.
Source: Browne Jacobson, 18 October 2024 — original correspondence extract →
Public statement · 18 October 2022
Acknowledgement repeated following another resident’s account
Responding to newspaper reporting about former resident David Harris, the Council again expressed regret that children in its care had been sexually abused and described the historical leadership and management as unacceptable. The statement referred to the stronger checks and controls the Council said existed by 2022.
Sources: 2022 Council Statements, MyLondon and Brentford Nub News →
Claim response · 2024
Duty accepted; breach disputed
On 7 May 2024, Browne Jacobson expressly accepted that Richmond owed me a duty of care while I lived at Grafton Close. The firm nevertheless resisted the negligence claim, relying on its assessment of historical records and decisions. My case is that the surviving placement evidence, Saunders criminal-court evidence and Grafton’s safeguarding history require serious consideration of the Council’s own acts and omissions.
Sources: 7 May 2024 correspondence → · Evidence supporting the negligence case →
Public message · 2015 and 2022
Recognition and assurances
Richmond’s published responses acknowledged historical harm and contrasted the practices exposed by earlier proceedings with the safeguards the Council said it had since strengthened. Such statements matter to survivors seeking meaningful accountability as well as reassurance.
Claim correspondence · 2024 and 2026
Pre-action engagement challenged
Browne Jacobson wrote in October 2024 that its enquiries were exhausted. In August 2026 I served a revised formal Letter of Claim, followed by a September protocol notice and an October objection to the response received. My complaint is that retaining an earlier position does not substitute for a substantive, reasoned engagement with the later evidence.
Sources: October 2024 correspondence → · 2026 pre-action correspondence chronology →
Why the comparison matters: Richmond’s public words and the solicitors’ private claim responses can both be examined on their own terms. The earlier council statements concern the specific historic events to which they referred; they are not, in themselves, a legal judgment about my separate 1984 claim. But the distinction between public acknowledgement and the Council’s response to a request for individual accountability deserves direct public scrutiny.
This comparison is drawn from dated published statements and the claimant’s preserved correspondence. It does not attribute other survivors’ private claims or statements without their permission.
November–December 2020
The Council, its insurer and its solicitors
In correspondence of 5 and 6 November 2020, the Council’s Insurance Manager, Richard Mason, identified Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI) as the historical insurer for the pre-1993 period. MMI acknowledged notification of my claim on 13 November 2020. In its 4 December 2020 letter, Browne Jacobson stated that MMI had instructed it to deal with my claim against the Council.
These are significant documents because they establish the Council’s own insurance referral, MMI’s involvement and Browne Jacobson’s appointment. The legal responsibility being challenged remains that of the Council: insurance arrangements govern claims handling and any applicable indemnity; they do not replace the Council’s safeguarding duties. The correspondence itself is not a policy coverage decision.
Original correspondence · 2020–2026 · Independent Inquiry findings
Who controlled the defence of my Richmond claim?
In 2020, as I was seeking my childhood records and answers about what happened at Grafton Close in 1984, Richmond referred my civil claim to its historical insurer, Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI). The original correspondence shows what Richmond’s Insurance Manager said about the insurer’s decisions, the assurances I received, and how the claim was handled. The dated extracts below are taken from my preserved Outlook emails.
18 November 2020 · MMI
The insurer appointed the solicitors
MMI acknowledged my abuse-claim notification and stated that Browne Jacobson would handle the claim on behalf of MMI and Richmond Council. This recorded their involvement; it was not a finding about negligence.
Source: MMI email of 18 November 2020 · reference 01/20/21/40294.
19 November 2020 · Richard Mason
Who decided how the claim would be handled?
Mason also explained that MMI chose whether to instruct solicitors and that appointing them was not the Council’s decision. His statement is evidence of the claims-handling arrangements as he described them, not proof that Richmond lacked independent legal responsibilities or any say in settling the case.
26 November 2020 · Richard Mason
An assurance about fair treatment
Responding to my concern that solicitors had been engaged simply to defend the claim, Mason said that, based on his long dealings with Browne Jacobson, they handled such cases “compassionately, diplomatically, and sensitively – and fairly”. He said they were not appointed simply to reject claims. This was his assurance about Browne Jacobson, not a direct assessment of MMI as reasonable.
Source: Mason’s annotated email of 26 November 2020.
21 January 2021 · Richard Mason
Who would determine the liability response?
Mason later wrote that, after the investigation, Browne Jacobson would be able to make a decision on liability. This describes the process as he understood it. It does not identify conclusively who could authorise an admission or settlement on Richmond’s behalf.
Source: Mason’s email of 21 January 2021.
What happened in my case
I lived at Grafton Close Children’s Home in 1984, under Richmond’s care. In sworn criminal-court evidence, I described Philip Saunders attending the home and taking me away; my account is that his access allowed abuse to continue during my time in care. Saunders was convicted of offences against me in October 2023 and sentenced in December 2023. His criminal conviction is not itself a court determination that Richmond was negligent. My separate civil claim is about whether Richmond failed in its own safeguarding duty to a resident child.
Browne Jacobson rejected civil liability in February 2021. Later, in 2024 correspondence, the solicitors accepted that Richmond owed me a duty of care at Grafton Close, but disputed breach and causation. They also said my questions about safeguarding measures after earlier offending at the home were irrelevant because Saunders was an outsider. I dispute that approach. My claim concerns the Council’s own arrangements for adult visitors, supervision and a child’s departure from the home, judged by the standards reasonably applicable in 1984, not whether Saunders was a Council employee.
Documents since obtained include care-placement evidence, surviving historic Grafton records and the criminal-court testimony. Their significance lies in testing the original liability assessment against what can now be verified. Missing historical records require proper investigation, but missing records alone do not prove negligence or deliberate concealment.
What the national inquiry found about councils and insurers
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse’s Accountability and Reparations report (September 2019), section C.8 examined insurer participation in historical abuse claims. At Stanhope Castle, MMI was involved in the claims defence and the Inquiry criticised Middlesbrough Council for insufficiently considering its corporate-parent responsibilities when relying on limitation. It acknowledged that individual claims faced real evidential difficulties and did not decide they would have succeeded.
At St Leonard’s Children’s Home, Tower Hamlets was also insured by MMI. The Inquiry identified the council’s position as important in achieving a settlement. These examples demonstrate why both an insurer’s role and a council’s independent decisions require scrutiny. They are not findings of misconduct against Richmond or MMI in my particular claim.
The questions I am pursuing
Who authorised the decision to deny liability, and who could reconsider it? Did Richmond independently examine its safeguarding obligations and the records concerning Grafton Close in 1984? Which original documents did MMI and Browne Jacobson receive, and do duplicates survive? What powers did the Council retain over advice, admissions and settlement?
On 24 October 2026, I sent Richmond a focused Freedom of Information request about these claims-governance arrangements and followed up my existing Subject Access Request to MMI, originally submitted on 7 October. Substantive responses were still outstanding on 24 October.
Sources: preserved emails from Richard Mason dated 19 and 26 November 2020 and 21 January 2021; MMI email of 18 November 2020; Browne Jacobson correspondence from 2021 and 2024. These private records are quoted in limited extracts without publishing addresses or medical information. For related primary evidence, see My Grafton Close Records and Richmond Council’s Statements. Independent context: IICSA, Accountability and Reparations, section C.8, paragraphs 70–87.
7 May and 23 September 2024
Browne Jacobson expressly accepted a duty of care
On 23 September 2024, the firm again acknowledged the duty. Its own email identified arrangements for visits, residents leaving the premises, what happened in practice, risk assessments and care planning among the relevant matters. That makes the operation of safeguards at Grafton Close central to the civil negligence dispute.
The defence positions, compared with the evidence
Why I challenge the defence advanced for Richmond
Saunders was a third party
Browne Jacobson relied on his non-employee status. But my case is directed to Richmond’s own care and supervision of a resident child. An adult’s employment status is not, in itself, the answer to whether the home operated reasonable controls over visitors and children being taken away.
Letters and emails: May, September and October 2024.
Earlier safeguarding events were treated as irrelevant
In October 2024 the firm dismissed my questions about measures following John Stingemore’s offences on the ground that Saunders was an outsider. I dispute that conclusion. The institutional history is relevant to foreseeable safeguarding risks and the protection systems reasonably expected at the time.
The defence relied on the passage of time
The original correspondence focused on historical record availability. Our subsequent investigation has brought together care-placement documentation, original Grafton registers, historical safeguarding material and criminal-court evidence. Those primary sources are fundamental to the challenge to the earlier assessment.
See: My Grafton Close Records and Grafton Logbooks.
The applicable standard is that of 1984
I agree that negligence must be considered according to the standards reasonable for residential care in 1984, not retrospectively imposed modern rules. That directs attention to contemporary practice, supervision, admissions, visitor management and authorisation of departures at the home.
See: Evidence and Sources.
Care evidence, court record and historical documents
Evidence supporting the negligence case
Placement: my 1984 care record identifies Grafton Close as my placement under the responsibility of Richmond. Access: in sworn cross-examination at Reading Crown Court on 5 October 2023, I described Saunders attending the home more than once and taking me out. Criminal proceedings: Saunders was convicted of offences against me, with sentencing remarks delivered in December 2023.
Institutional history: surviving material documents historical abuse and staffing matters at Grafton Close. In 2015 Richmond’s Chief Executive described historical service leadership and management exposed in criminal proceedings as “totally unacceptable”. The Council’s own public words are preserved with their original sources.
These sources underpin my case that the safeguarding arrangements Richmond owed to a child in its care must be examined directly. The claim concerns the continuation of abuse through access to me during my period at the home.
Read: 1984 care exhibits · Richmond Council’s statements · Newspaper Archive · David Harris’s separately documented account.
Legal authorities · defence and response
Poole, Bolam and the authorities supporting my case
My 2026 correspondence challenged the use of Poole and the Bolam principle in the Council’s defence. This is a direct-negligence claim concerning a child already accommodated in Richmond’s care, and the safeguarding arrangements at Grafton Close.
Why Poole is distinguishable
N v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25 discusses the limits on finding duties from the exercise of statutory child-protection functions alone. But at paragraphs 65–66 the Supreme Court expressly distinguished a council which has taken a child into care and assumed responsibility for welfare. Richmond had accepted responsibility for my placement and Browne Jacobson acknowledged that I was owed a duty of care while living at the home.
Barrett v Enfield [1999] UKHL 25 considered negligence arising in the care of an already accommodated child. HXA/YXA [2023] UKSC 52 confirmed, at paragraphs 106–107, that responsibility undertaken for a child during accommodation can include reasonable protection against harm by third parties.
Why Bolam does not determine the safeguarding question
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 concerns skilled professional judgment assessed against responsible professional practice. The House of Lords recognised in Barrett that the principle can apply to aspects of social work, but that does not provide general immunity from negligence in the practical delivery of care. Bolitho [1997] UKHL 46 confirms that professional opinion is not invariably conclusive if it cannot withstand logical analysis.
My case concerns visitor access, children being taken from the home, supervision and the operation of safeguarding controls. Simply invoking Bolam is not itself an answer to whether reasonable arrangements operated according to the standards of 1984.
The judgments are linked above; this is my stated legal position, not a court determination of Richmond’s liability.
Correspondence · 2026 pre-action procedure
My pre-action compliance challenge
On 17 August 2026 I sent Browne Jacobson a formal Letter of Claim under the Personal Injury Pre-Action Protocol. It set out the direct-negligence case against the Council and referred to the contemporaneous placement evidence, criminal-court testimony, prior safeguarding history and the 2026 legal framework. I also invited substantive engagement and alternative dispute resolution.
On 7 September 2026 I sent a Final Pre-Action Protocol Notice recording my objection to the absence of the initial response required by paragraph 6.2. My written reply of 13 October 2026 records that the solicitors had reported the Council’s insurers reviewed the updated material, maintained the earlier position and would not provide a further response unless proceedings were issued and served.
I dispute the adequacy of treating those earlier conclusions as a sufficient answer to the detailed later evidence. The Council’s acknowledged duty of care, the court record concerning Saunders’s access to the home, and the historical safeguarding evidence warrant a reasoned response to the actual direct-negligence claim.
What the applicable protocol expects
The Personal Injury Pre-Action Protocol provides for a response within 21 calendar days identifying the insurer (paragraph 6.2); a period for investigation and a liability response (paragraph 6.3); and a reasoned account with relevant documents when liability or causation is denied (paragraph 6.5). The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct supports proportionate exchange of information and meaningful attempts to resolve disputes.
My position: the handling of the revised claim raises a serious pre-action compliance concern. Merely restating an earlier refusal does not, in my view, amount to proper consideration of the evidence I have supplied. This is my documented objection, not a judicial finding of non-compliance.
Source chronology: Letter of Claim sent 17 August 2026; protocol notice sent 7 September 2026; formal response sent 13 October 2026. Only a public summary is reproduced; private correspondence and personal address details remain unpublished.
Crime and Policing Act 2026 · section 96
The law changed after the 2024 defence correspondence
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 changed the limitation framework for qualifying claims involving injuries attributable to childhood sexual abuse. It inserted sections 11ZA and 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980. For claims within those provisions, ordinary limitation periods are removed and the statutory fair-hearing burden rests on the defendant. The changes came into force on 29 June 2026.
Historic reliance on the former three-year limitation rules must therefore be evaluated under the law now in force.
Original letters and emails · selected redacted extracts
Read the defence correspondence
The dated documentary extracts below reproduce or summarise material from the original Council, MMI and Browne Jacobson records. Private residential addresses and personal contact details are excluded. They are presented as selected exhibits, not full facsimile copies.
EX01 · November 2020 · Council and MMI insurance emails
Richmond’s Insurance Manager identified MMI as the insurer for the relevant pre-1993 period. An MMI claims officer acknowledged notification of the claim on 13 November 2020.
“Our Insurer pre 1993 was Municipal Mutual (MMI)”
Richard Mason, 5 November 2020; source: Council–MMI correspondence chain. Address and direct contact details omitted.
EX02 · 4 December 2020 · Browne Jacobson letter
“Browne Jacobson LLP have been instructed by Municipal Mutual Insurance to deal with your claim against the Council.”
Original letter initiating the firm’s handling of the claim. Recipient’s postal address and contact details omitted.
EX03 · 7 May 2024 · Duty-of-care admission
“The Council does not deny that it owed you a duty of care during your time at the home. The issue is whether it breached that duty.”
The email described the claim concerning Saunders as a negligence claim and confirmed the firm’s instructions from the Council and its historical insurers.
EX04 · 9 and 23 September 2024 · Negligence and supervision arrangements
“Whilst you lived at Grafton Close, you were owed a duty of care by the Council.”
The 23 September email expressly identified visits, residents being taken out, actual arrangements and care planning as issues relevant to breach and causation.
EX05 · 18 October 2024 · Response on the relevance of previous offences
“Given that you were not sexually abused by a member of staff, but by a third party, we do not consider these issues to be relevant to your proposed claim.”
That was Browne Jacobson’s response to questions about mitigation following earlier offending at Grafton Close. I dispute its relevance assessment for a direct-negligence claim about safeguarding an outsider’s access.