Richmond Council: Public Promises vs Actual Conduct

On 27 February 2015, following criminal proceedings concerning Grafton Close, Richmond’s then Chief Executive described historical service leadership and management exposed in court as “totally unacceptable”. In October 2022, the Council repeated its criticism of historical leadership and management when commenting on another former resident’s account.

On 18 October 2024, Browne Jacobson said that questions about safeguarding measures after John Stingemore’s offences were not relevant to the proposed civil claim because Philip Saunders was a third party rather than an employee. The claimant disputes treating earlier institutional safeguarding failures as irrelevant to Richmond’s own duty to protect a child already living in its care.

The Local Government Association Code of Practice, 6 July 2022, encourages councils to respond sensitively, use named points of contact, recognise individual needs, consider meaningful apologies and avoid an unnecessarily defensive approach. It also calls for constructive coordination with insurers and solicitors. The Code is voluntary guidance, not binding law.

The claimant has described years of pursuing explanations and evidence. In October 2024 Browne Jacobson stated it would not answer further pre-action correspondence. In 2026, the claimant sent a revised formal Letter of Claim and challenged the adequacy of the response. That sequence deserves comparison with the Council’s published survivor-centred standards.

Browne Jacobson’s 2024 responses repeatedly relied on the passage of time and the absence of the claimant’s original social-services case records when disputing whether breach of duty could be assessed.

Surviving evidence includes the 1984 care-placement and admission records, original Grafton Close registers and 1980 and 1982 logbooks, as well as material from subsequent criminal proceedings. The earlier logbooks are evidence of historical record-keeping practices, not a replacement for a 1984 personal case file. These materials provide an evidential basis for challenging a blanket description of the case as unsupported.

In its published responses in 2015 and 2022, Richmond contrasted the historical failings exposed in criminal proceedings with the more rigorous placement checks and safeguards it said operated at those later dates.

A 1981 criminal conviction concerned sexual offending at Grafton Close. The claimant’s own placement followed in 1984; he later gave sworn evidence concerning Saunders attending the home and taking him away. Those events form part of the wider history of abuse and safeguarding at the institution. The claimant’s allegation of direct Council negligence is presented separately from the convictions and documented historical facts.

Former Grafton Close resident David Harris spoke publicly in reports published in 2022. Richmond’s response to that reporting expressed regret and repeated its assessment of unacceptable historical leadership and management. His own account is distinct from the claimant’s experience.

Both the public response to Harris and the claimant’s correspondence belong in a chronology of how the authority has addressed survivors. They can be compared for acknowledgement, communication, institutional learning and individual accountability without treating different allegations as interchangeable or publishing anyone’s private messages without permission.

Published good-practice guidance calls for clear processes, candid communication and coordination between council services, insurers and solicitors. The civil pre-action rules separately envisage investigation, reasoned positions and proportionate information exchange. Information-rights complaints have their own statutory route.

The claimant disputes the adequacy of the Council’s and solicitors’ responses to his 17 August 2026 Letter of Claim, 7 September protocol notice and 13 October follow-up. Separately, he has challenged the handling of requests for Rodney Road records after receiving earlier Grafton Close logbook material. Those are specific accountability complaints that can be tested against their original correspondence.