NPA Misrepresentation Claim, Opening With Gateshead Access Panel
By Kieron JH ·
Editor note: This page is background. It sets context and records what is already evidenced. A separate, detailed analysis of the allegation itself is planned by 28 September 2025.
Gateshead Access Panel, what ChronicleLive reported
ChronicleLive reported on 23 September 2025 that Gateshead Access Panel, a charity supporting disabled people and carers, closed after its finance officer, Steven Hughes, stole charity funds to fuel gambling. The report describes repeated thefts, use of payment services linked to the charity account, and shortfalls that affected payments to carers. It records an amount taken of around £139,427 before wage offsets, a net loss of about £120,557, partial repayments, around £78,000 outstanding at sentence, and an 18 month sentence suspended for 12 months with unpaid work. Source: ChronicleLive report.
We open with this because it shows real harm from real governance failure. It is a local case with clear consequences. It gives readers a reference point for what misrepresentation and failure look like when they actually damage people and services.
Who Gateshead Access Panel were, advocacy remit
A Gateshead Council directory entry describes Gateshead Access Panel as providing case advocacy and advocacy support for disabled people, including younger disabled people, their carers and parents. It lists practical support such as help with social care, equipment, adaptations, housing, education, and support with appeals and complaints. Listing includes Unit K38, The Avenues, Eleventh Avenue North, Team Valley Trading Estate, Gateshead NE11 0NJ, phone 0191 4430058, email [email protected], website access-gateshead.org.uk. Source: Gateshead Council directory.
Why this is not our case
The Chronicle story is about internal financial offending inside a charity that handled money, payroll, and client accounts. Our situation is different in subject, role, and impact. The NPA has suggested misrepresentation based on a single line in a single email. The line said I would be represented by The Reasonable Adjustment. Every message was signed as Kieron Jay Holmes, from The Reasonable Adjustment, with no claim to be a solicitor or regulated adviser, and no fee paying client relationship.
| Point | Gateshead Access Panel case | Our case with NPA and IPS |
|---|---|---|
| Subject matter | Internal theft, financial control failure, charity closes | Wording in one email, privacy governance, SAR handling, website accuracy |
| Role | Employee offender inside the organisation | External reporter and service user, no control of third party funds |
| Harm type | Direct monetary loss and service disruption to vulnerable people | No financial loss caused by us, we publish dates, logs, and page captures |
| Evidence posture | Criminal proceedings and court reporting | Documented emails, website captures, Cloudflare logs, right of reply offered |
| Representation issue | Not about representation | Plain English masthead reference, not regulated legal representation |
The email wording, what it meant
The wording that triggered the allegation referred to representation in communications and publication under a transparent masthead. It did not claim regulated legal representation. No statement that I am a solicitor. No engagement letter. No retainer. No client being represented for a fee. Every email shows my personal name, with The Reasonable Adjustment as the publishing platform.
For clarity, references to being represented by The Reasonable Adjustment describe representation in communications and publication. They do not describe legal representation. I act in my own name. I am not a solicitor or a law firm. I do not provide legal advice.
Receipts that actually matter here
- On net access: Traffic from NPA-AS landed on our IPS and NPA coverage, with Microsoft Teams CDN referrer. Public posts mask the last octet.
- Outdated privacy notice: IPS Pharma public privacy page displayed a 2018 date at the time of checks.
- Policy links: NPA policy links previously looped to homepage, then were corrected after we raised it. Credit for the fix.
- SAR timing: Dates and follow ups are recorded. Missed deadlines and partial responses are documented in writing.
Right of reply and next steps
If you claim misrepresentation, identify the exact sentence, page, and date, and provide the documents that you say are contradicted by that sentence. Send to [email protected]. Substantive responses will be published in full, subject to privacy and security limits.
A detailed analysis of the allegation itself is planned by 28 September 2025. Any new documents received before publication will be considered.
Be First to Comment