Sometimes, requesting basic transparency triggers something darker. This is one of those times.
In July 2025, I raised lawful and well-documented concerns with a charity I was referred to for employment support – The Recruitment Junction. Rather than engage constructively or uphold their stated values of compassion and second chances, I was told that if I contacted them again, they would consider opening a new casefile on me. The threat came via email from Kerry Bell-Saunders, their “Contracts and Programmes Manager“
📜 Submitting a Lawful SAR
Rather than escalate emotionally, I chose the legal route — submitting a Subject Access Request (SAR) on 11 July 2025 under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.
This SAR was comprehensive but reasonable. I requested access to any data in which I was named, referenced, or discussed, including internal communications and complaint handling. This is not just my right – it’s basic UK data law.
❌ The Response? A Legal Misunderstanding – or a Convenient Excuse?
Instead of fulfilling their legal obligation, Beverley Brooks, CEO of The Recruitment Junction, claimed they had already deleted all data about me – and that they would not be complying with the SAR.
Let’s be very clear: whilst I did submit a limited Right to Erasure request on 7 July 2025, this applied only to personal information I had directly submitted – not to internal records, emails, or discussions about me.
Under UK GDPR, I am still lawfully entitled to access all personal data that relates to me — regardless of who authored it. Deleting submitted forms doesn’t nullify that obligation. And citing that deletion to deny my SAR is not only misinformed — it looks dangerously close to obstruction.
Follow up email I sent to TRJ – right click and open image in new tab if it’s hard to read the text.
📵 Blocked Emails – Silencing Lawful Requests
After I submitted a formal complaint – and before I could even follow up – my email address was blocked by The Recruitment Junction, including their public info@ inbox. I had to create a new email address just to restate my lawful SAR.
Let that sink in. I was blocked from exercising my data rights. And even now, weeks later, I have still received no proper response, no breakdown of what was deleted, and no explanation from the Board of Trustees. Beverley Brooks has, however, stated in writing that they “have already deleted all my data,” showing a complete disregard for their duties as a data controller. I had explicitly requested all internal correspondence and even anticipated their Right to Erasure objections in advance. The fact that she chose to ignore these points reflects extremely poorly on her governance. Disappointingly, this is proving to become a recurring theme.
⏳ Final Deadline Issued
As a final measure of good faith, I have given them until close of business on 11 August 2025 to respond fully and lawfully. If no response is received, I will escalate to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) without further notice.
⚖️ Why This Matters
- Blocking SAR requests is not just shady – it may be unlawful.
- The GDPR doesn’t end when a charity doesn’t feel like complying.
- Data transparency is a legal obligation – not an optional courtesy.
This could’ve been resolved quickly, professionally, and quietly. But instead, the pattern has been one of silence, retaliation, and avoidance.
And when transparency is treated as a threat, you can be sure someone’s hiding something.
Author: Kieron JH
Platform: The Reasonable Adjustment
Date: 8 August 2025
Be First to Comment