By Kieron JH – Founder, The Reasonable Adjustment
What began as a simple disagreement over a standardised CV template has now spiralled into a governance and accountability case study – and it all traces back to a single decision made by Beverley Brooks, CEO of The Recruitment Junction (TRJ).
The Spark
In early July 2025, I provided respectful, written feedback to TRJ about their insistence on using a standardised CV format. My concern was straightforward: it stripped away important achievements, didn’t reflect my professional experience accurately, and undermined my ability to present myself authentically to employers.
Within 20 minutes of sending that feedback, Beverley Brooks withdrew support entirely. There was no discussion, no compromise, and no attempt to address my points constructively. Instead, she blocked further communication and ignored my documented reasonable adjustments for autism, which require written correspondence.
From Minor Dispute to Legal Breach
That single action set off a chain reaction.
Because TRJ had been introduced to me via a Probation Service referral, their refusal to communicate and comply with my Subject Access Request (SAR) was not just a private disagreement – it became a statutory breach of UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The SAR, submitted on 11 July 2025, was valid, clear, and made within my legal rights. TRJ ignored it. The statutory deadline has now passed. No lawful exemption has been cited. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a breach of the law.
Pulling Others Into the Web
The moment TRJ failed to comply with my Subject Access Request, the Probation Service – who referred me – became directly connected to the issue. Whether they like it or not, they have an oversight and safeguarding duty for the organisations they send service users to.
I’ve raised this point repeatedly, but instead of intervening, the Probation Service initially claimed they “cannot assist or contribute” to concerns involving third-party providers. Yet history shows they have acted on other providers in the past, such as Ingeus, when safeguarding or contractual issues were at stake.
This is not neutrality – it is tacit complicity.
The Escalation
My complaint has now reached the point where further escalation to oversight bodies is likely – but I believe in fairness and due process. I have copied in my Member of Parliament and contacted the Home Office to ensure transparency.
However, I am holding back on referring this to the Information Commissioner’s Office until after the outcome of the upcoming Probation Service meeting and TRJ’s trustees’ meeting. It is only right to allow the trustees an opportunity to address the matter before formal regulatory action is considered.
The Bigger Lesson
What could have been resolved in a short email exchange has now become a governance mess involving multiple agencies and oversight bodies. One poor judgment call has:
- Damaged trust between service user and provider.
- Created a live case study in mishandling complaints.
- Triggered formal legal and safeguarding implications.
- Risked reputational fallout for both TRJ and the Probation Service.
Where This Goes Next
The meeting with probation will take place before TRJ’s trustees meet. I will be going in with a clear, documented record, my legal rights in mind, and an insistence that all follow-up be in writing.
This situation is a reminder to any organisation: complaints are not threats – they are opportunities to put things right. Handle them well, and you build trust. Handle them badly, and you end up with the Home Office and other agencies getting involved.
Kieron JH
Founder – The Reasonable Adjustment
thereasonableadjustment.co.uk
Be First to Comment