These dated events identify the actions and statements documented in the correspondence. Allegations, inferences and open questions are identified as such.
2020 · May–JuneThe records search begins
I asked AfC for the records of my childhood placement. In May I was told they were likely to have been destroyed in a 2006 records-centre fire. Internal June correspondence considered destruction under a retention schedule, initially using uncertain language. I was subsequently told the files had been destroyed after my twenty-fifth birthday. These were materially different explanations.
Sources: AfC correspondence of 18 May and 11–16 June 2020; preserved redacted internal emails.
2020 · 17–20 JulyI disclose the abuse and raise institutional questions
I reported allegations about sexual misconduct and the access of an outside abuser to a child living at Grafton Close. In internal correspondence Councillor Penny Frost asked Ian Dodds about previous investigations, the reasons for placements and how the allegations should be investigated; Gareth Roberts was copied. My concern extended beyond a possible compensation claim.
Source: preserved redacted AfC/Council correspondence, 17–20 July 2020.
2020 · 10 SeptemberRichmond withdraws my complaint
Katrina Waite told me historical abuse should be considered by the police and withdrew my complaint from the Council's complaints process rather than progressing it to Stage 2. She acknowledged that other aspects had been raised and referred me to Caroline Mark at AfC. Withdrawal of the complaint is documented; whether other internal assessments occurred remains a question.
Source: Katrina Waite, 'RE Complaint – KH', 10 September 2020.
2020 · October–NovemberThe Council separates investigations from insurance — on paper
Ian Dodds referred to police, record requests and a potential letter of claim. On 6 November Insurance Manager Richard Mason explained that MMI dealt with insurance/civil damages, not a Council investigation: 'They cannot get involved in any Council investigation.' This distinction ought to have preserved a separate Council route for examining its own conduct.
Sources: Ian Dodds, 28 October 2020; Richard Mason correspondence, 6 November 2020.
2021 · January–FebruaryNo proof of destruction identified; liability disputed
An internal AfC email dated 8 January said there was nothing proving the destruction beyond a list of destruction dates then in use. On 17 February Browne Jacobson, acting in connection with the civil claim, rejected liability. The insurance defence did not answer every non-litigation institutional question.
Sources: redacted AfC internal correspondence, 8 January 2021; Browne Jacobson letter, 17 February 2021.
2021 · SeptemberDavid Harris identifies AfC as a separate part of his struggle
David Harris later described correspondence with Achieving for Children beginning around 20 September 2021, after his police report. His earlier police emails show repeated concerns about unavailable social-care records. His experience must be considered in its own chronology, not assumed identical to mine.
Sources: David Harris SMS, 23 September 2024; forwarded police correspondence, 2019–2021.
2022 · 18 OctoberAnother Grafton Close survivor speaks publicly
David Harris described his experiences publicly. Richmond responded that it would always be sorry that children in its care had been sexually abused and said historical service leadership and management were unacceptable. This was a public acknowledgement of historical wrongdoing in the service, not a determination of my separate civil claim.
Source: Brentford Nub News interview and Richmond Council statement, 18 October 2022.
2022 · 10 NovemberHarris's case enters the MMI solicitor route
DAC Beachcroft wrote to David Harris explaining that it had been appointed to handle his claim for MMI on behalf of Richmond. Its letter discussed civil liability and said it held some social services documents while seeking others. This proves insurer-led handling of that claim; it does not by itself prove the Council refused him an independent complaint.
Source: original DAC Beachcroft letter to Harris, 10 November 2022, reference MMI003-2120483.
2023 · October–DecemberThe Saunders prosecution changes the evidential picture
Philip Saunders was convicted of offences against me in October 2023 and sentenced in December 2023. I had raised concerns with Richmond three years earlier, before that prosecution. A criminal conviction is not a judicial finding of Council negligence; it does make the question of whether Richmond reconsidered its institutional response particularly important.
Source: the criminal case and existing police-investigations chronology on this website.
2024 · 29 AprilThe legal correspondence route is made explicit
Ian Dodds wrote that Richmond had referred the civil claim to insurers, who instructed Browne Jacobson, and that their advice was for correspondence to pass through the solicitors. Importantly, the same email invited further direct questions. It therefore evidences correspondence-routing advice, not an absolute ban on direct contact.
Source: Ian Dodds original email, 29 April 2024.
2024 · 28 August–18 OctoberSenior leadership and solicitors address the claim, not all the questions
Council Leader Gareth Roberts said the legal team had been instructed to engage regarding claims and declined to comment outside that process. Browne Jacobson later accepted that Richmond owed a duty of care but disputed breach and causation, and took the position that some questions about earlier safeguards were not relevant to the Saunders third-party claim. I dispute that position.
Sources: Gareth Roberts letter, 28 August 2024; Browne Jacobson letters, 23 September and 18 October 2024.
2024 · 23–28 SeptemberHarris recounts years of chasing authorities
David told me by SMS that reading his old correspondence had brought back how long he had chased police and AfC. He described the experience as overwhelming. In a separate email on 28 September he again described years pursuing answers. His statements are first-person testimony about the process, not proof of the motives of individual officers.
Sources: original Harris SMS, 23 September 2024, and Outlook email, 28 September 2024.
2025 · 22 May–JuneSolicitors cease acting; archived files are recalled
Browne Jacobson wrote on 22 May that it was no longer instructed. Ian Dodds offered a meeting and, on 9 June, said he had requested Grafton Close files from archival storage. These were steps of engagement and must be acknowledged, but the surviving correspondence still does not identify a completed independent review answering the wider institutional questions.
Sources: Browne Jacobson email, 22 May 2025; Ian Dodds emails, May–June 2025.
2026 · April–JuneThe unanswered questions reach Parliament
Parliamentary questions and ministerial responses addressed Grafton Close, historical safeguarding and the requested independent scrutiny. The Department for Education's June response left the question of further local examination with the responsible local arrangements rather than announcing a separate government inquiry.
Sources: written parliamentary answers, 29 April and 2 June 2026.
2026 · 7 August–24 OctoberStill asking who is independently accountable
Ian Dodds said in August that he had shared my correspondence with insurance solicitors and the Council's position had not changed. In October I pursued specific questions about whether MMI or Browne Jacobson had instructed or advised the Council not to communicate directly with me, and about the scope of such advice. Those October enquiries were pending when this page was prepared.
Sources: Dodds email, 7 August 2026; outbound enquiries dated 24 October 2026.
