What should have been a straightforward request for information has turned into a case study in how public services can dodge accountability. Below is a documented record of how a lawful Freedom of Information request was misclassified, how safeguarding concerns were sidelined, and how a hidden honeypot page on my site recorded a suspicious visit right after a delayed response from the Probation Service. Writing is not witchcraft. Transparency should not be either.

Executive Summary

• FOI mishandled: An FOI about Probation oversight of The Recruitment Junction was redirected to a SAR portal that only covers personal data. No proper FOI processing or acknowledgement followed until I directly informed senior staff that their confidence in their team’s handling was misplaced.
• Safeguarding concerns ignored: Repeated concerns about disability adjustments, abrupt support withdrawal, and trauma impact received no meaningful response.
• Contact claims without substance: A promised call from named staff did not arrive. Later, an unhelpful voicemail claim surfaced without any accessible written follow up.
• Digital probe recorded: A hidden honeypot page logged a targeted visit minutes after a Probation reply. The page is not publicly linked and exists only to detect unusual access.
• Formal SAR sent to HMPPS: Scope includes case notes, internal remarks, references in OASys and nDelius, and any monitoring or surveillance references.
• Clear asks made: Internal investigation, confirmation of any access or monitoring, legal basis for any surveillance, and assurance against retaliation.

Timeline

• 21 July 2025: FOI submitted regarding Probation oversight of The Recruitment Junction. Response from Becca (Admin, SFO/Complaints SPOC) misclassifies it as a Subject Access Request and points to a SAR portal. No FOI processing follows.
• 5 August 2025: Letter from Ms Shirley Allen. I respond the same day, setting out FOI mishandling, safeguarding concerns, and lack of contact from named staff despite multiple issues at play.
• Post 5 August 2025: Only after I told Ms Allen directly that her confidence in her team’s handling was misplaced did I receive confirmation that the FOI and SAR would finally be looked into.
• 8 August 2025: Second letter sent to Ms Allen. I question the legal basis for telling me not to copy Probation into TRJ related concerns and highlight precedent where Probation did scrutinise a third party provider. I flag TRJ SAR non compliance and request clarity on a claimed call from “Chris Harris”.
• 14 August 2025 at 17:23: Hidden honeypot page on my website is accessed after an internal search for “Probation”. Visit triggers passive fingerprinting and immediately exits. Occurs roughly 20 minutes after a delayed Probation reply.
• 15 August 2025: This post is published with the evidence log and formal requests consolidated.

What Went Wrong

1. FOI Misclassification and Delay

An FOI about oversight and governance is not a SAR. Directing me to a SAR portal avoided the statutory duty to handle a Freedom of Information request. As of writing, no proper FOI acknowledgement or processing was provided until after I made it clear to Shirley Allen that her confidence in her team’s handling of the situation was misplaced.

2. Safeguarding and Disability Adjustments

Written communication is a lawful reasonable adjustment. I asked for it. What I got was silence, vague texts, and claims that people tried to call. That is not trauma informed practice. It is the opposite of accessible, and it undermines trust.

3. Contact Without Accountability

Named contacts were promised. They did not contact me in writing. An alleged voicemail was mentioned, yet no email or text followed, despite my adjustment request and the obvious need for a written record given the legal context.

Evidence Log

• Emails and letters: 5 August and 8 August responses to Ms Allen documenting FOI mishandling, safeguarding failures, and TRJ SAR non compliance.
• Honeypot event: 14 August 2025 at 17:23. Internal search term “Probation”. Device traits recorded:
  • Platform: Linux armv81
  • User Agent: SamsungBrowser 28.0 with Chrome 130 spoofing
  • Timezone: Europe London
  • Cookies enabled and JavaScript active
• Access pattern: Immediate exit after tripwire notice. No public link exists to the page. It is designed to detect targeted browsing only.

Legal Context in Brief

• Freedom of Information Act 2000: Covers recorded information held by public bodies. Not the same as a SAR.
• UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018: SAR covers personal data. TRJ is currently refusing to comply with my valid SAR submitted 11 July 2025.
• Equality Act 2010: Reasonable adjustments must be anticipated and provided. Written communication is a textbook example when a person struggles with calls.
• Safeguarding duty of care: Selective engagement that favours institutional risk over vulnerable service user risk fails the basic test of safeguarding.

HMPPS SAR Scope Submitted

The SAR to HMPPS requests:

• All case notes and contact logs including remarks, escalation references, and reputational commentary.
• Records across OASys, nDelius, and internal correspondence where I am referenced, including TRJ links.
• Any surveillance or monitoring references relating to my website or online activity, including legal basis and purpose.

Formal Requests Now Made

1. Investigate whether the 14 August visit originated within MoJ, HMPPS, or associated staff or contractors.
2. Confirm if any Probation or MoJ staff accessed my site on or around 14 August 2025.
3. Disclose whether any surveillance or digital monitoring has been ordered, with legal basis, authoriser, and purpose.
4. Explain safeguards in place to prevent inappropriate monitoring of complainants.
5. Provide assurance that such monitoring will cease and that there will be no retaliation for raising these concerns.
6. Correctly process the FOI and address the safeguarding issues in writing.

Closing Note

I remain open to constructive dialogue. What I will not accept is misdirection, silence, or selective process that protects institutions while leaving disabled service users to absorb the harm. If your team can text me at 6 pm about a Friday meeting, it can also email me clear answers.