The Recruitment Junction: Background and Context

The Recruitment Junction (TRJ) is a Newcastle based charity that markets itself as a faith informed, compassionate route into work for people with criminal convictions. It works with a network of employer partners across multiple sectors and receives public funding. Alongside that polished narrative sits a very different story from at least one disabled service user.

This page sets out the core background to that case. It explains how a referral from probation turned into withdrawal of support within twenty minutes, why safeguarding and equality duties are now in question, how Subject Access Requests and complaints have been handled, and how TRJ’s public funding footprint contradicts what its CEO told a service user in writing.

Key issues at a glance

• Formal referral of a disabled ex offender from the Probation Service to TRJ for employment support.
• Request for written communication as a reasonable adjustment for diagnosed autism ignored in practice.
• Support withdrawn by the CEO within twenty minutes of a respectful values based challenge about CV control.
• Four email addresses blocked after rights based communication, including around Subject Access Requests.
• Claim by the CEO that TRJ received no public funding, later contradicted by FOI payments data and by the Charity Commission.
• Premature data deletion and refusal to comply with a SAR, now raised with the ICO.
• Safeguarding concerns escalated to Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board and public funders.
• Charity Commission complaint logged, with a senior manager confirming public funding and referring key issues to the ICO and the courts.

Referral and initial engagement

The case begins with a formal referral. Kieron JH was referred to The Recruitment Junction by the Probation Service as a disabled ex offender seeking work. He has a confirmed diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and other long term health conditions. At an early stage he requested that TRJ use written communication as a reasonable adjustment so that he could process information and respond without overload.

Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers have both a duty to make reasonable adjustments when requested and an anticipatory duty to consider disabled users in general. In practice this means adapting communication, pace and process for someone with autism, rather than insisting that they fit a rigid, generic system.

Early correspondence with staff, including Contracts and Programmes Manager Molly Beadle, focused on TRJ’s insistence on a standardised CV template. Kieron preferred his existing CV, which contained a detailed profile, concrete achievements and a professional history that went beyond simple bullet points. The disagreement was not about whether to improve a CV. It was about autonomy, accuracy and who controls how a disabled person is presented to employers.

Withdrawal of support and blocking

After Kieron raised respectful concerns about values, autonomy and the standardised CV, TRJ’s CEO Beverley Brooks responded by withdrawing all support. This decision was made within around twenty minutes of his email. The sudden withdrawal meant that a referred, disabled service user was left without the promised employment support, even though he had engaged constructively and within the bounds of the process.

The situation escalated further when Beverley informed probation that Kieron’s emails amounted to harassment. The emails in question challenged governance, equality and data handling, and relied heavily on quoting law and published policy. They were rights based, not abusive. TRJ then blocked multiple email addresses that Kieron used to exercise Subject Access Request and complaint rights.

Blocking a disabled service user across several email addresses while they are in the middle of asserting legal rights has serious consequences. It undermines any claim to have a fair complaints process, makes data rights harder to exercise, and deprives probation of a stable support route for the person they referred.

Data protection and SAR issues

On 7 July 2025 Kieron submitted a limited Right to Erasure request. On 11 July 2025 he submitted a full Subject Access Request under Article 15 of UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. That SAR asked for all data in which he was named or discussed, including internal emails, notes and complaint handling material. This is a standard, lawful request.

Instead of following the usual route of acknowledgement, identification checks and eventual disclosure, TRJ’s CEO later claimed that all data about Kieron had been deleted on 8 July. That narrative created an obvious tension. It meant TRJ was relying on early deletion after a limited erasure request to justify non compliance with a broader SAR submitted later.

There are several potential problems in that sequence. Article 5 of UK GDPR requires that data processing be lawful, fair and transparent. Article 15 gives data subjects a right to access their personal data. Deleting material during a live dispute, in the shadow of a SAR and safeguarding concerns, sits very uncomfortably with those principles. The case is described in more detail in the article When a “Casefile” is a Threat: SAR Failures at The Recruitment Junction.

TRJ’s published Privacy Notice from January 2021 also promises standards on retention, access rights and complaints that do not align with how this case has been handled in practice. That gap is analysed in The Recruitment Junction privacy notice vs practice.

Equality Act and safeguarding concerns

The Equality Act 2010 protects disabled people in both employment and services. A charity that accepts referrals from probation and advertises support with job search and confidence building is a service provider. It must take reasonable steps to remove disadvantages faced by disabled service users.

In this case TRJ did not honour a clear request for written communication, did not build in extra time for processing and reflection, and did not treat detailed legal concerns as a cue to slow down and de escalate. Instead, they withdrew support in minutes and framed rights based communication as harassment.

There is also a safeguarding dimension. Abruptly withdrawing support from a disabled person referred by probation, without any apparent attempt to explore alternatives or mitigate risk, raises questions under the Care Act 2014 and under TRJ’s own safeguarding procedures. A formal safeguarding concern has been raised with Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board. Public funders, including HMPPS, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions, Newcastle City Council and Northumbria VRP, have been notified.

Public funding and the CEO’s denial

During the dispute, TRJ’s CEO told Kieron in writing that the charity did not receive public funding. That claim became a central point of contention because TRJ presents itself as a small, community driven, donation led effort, while operating in spaces where public grants, contracts and programmes are common.

Freedom of Information requests to Newcastle City Council then confirmed that TRJ had in fact received substantial public money. FOI 24689 disclosed itemised payments totalling £134,272.06 since 2021 through schemes such as Community Led Local Development and the Newcastle Fund. That figure is covered in FOI 24689: Newcastle City Council Confirms £134,272 Public Funding to The Recruitment Junction and supported by a full document archive hosted on GitHub: Newcastle City Council FOI on The Recruitment Junction – Full Document Archive Now Public.

Those disclosures sit alongside a wider public funding picture explored in Fact Check: Does The Recruitment Junction Receive Public Funding? and The £130,000+ Lie: Beverley Brooks – “CEO” of The Recruitment Junction. Taken together, they show that the CEO’s claim of no public funding was not true.

What the Charity Commission has now confirmed

Kieron submitted a detailed complaint to the Charity Commission about governance, data handling and safeguarding. After an initial response, the case was reviewed by a senior assessment manager who had not previously handled the file. In a letter dated 21 November 2025 the Commission confirmed several points that matter for this case, even though they chose not to open a full regulatory inquiry.

First, the Commission confirmed that open source research and TRJ’s own website make it clear that the charity does receive public funding. In other words, an independent regulator has now put in writing what FOI material already showed. The CEO’s earlier denial to a disabled service user is now clearly at odds with both council records and regulatory assessment.

Second, the Commission stated that concerns about trustee meeting notes and Subject Access Request handling are properly for the Information Commissioner’s Office. That is an acknowledgement that these are information rights questions, not just customer service issues. Third, they confirmed that alleged obstruction of the pre action protocol is a matter for the courts, signalling that aspects of TRJ’s conduct belong in a legal forum rather than charity casework triage.

Finally, the Commission confirmed that the information provided about TRJ will be kept on the charity’s regulatory record. There is now a permanent note that a disabled ex offender raised detailed concerns about governance, data handling and public funding honesty. The full analysis of that letter is set out in What The Charity Commission Really Said About The Recruitment Junction, and the PDF of the letter itself is available there for readers who want to review the wording in full.

Related governance and oversight threads

The TRJ case has touched other institutions and professionals. Key examples include:

• Independent examination: questions raised with Robson Laidler, TRJ’s independent examiner, about their handling of public interest concerns and whistleblower policy, described in Robson Laidler Director Responds to Public Interest Warning with One Line Dismissal.
• Regional governance and FOI culture: a comparison of disclosure approaches by Newcastle City Council and the North East Combined Authority in Newcastle City Council vs NECA FOI Responses.
• ACAS and tribunal route: an explanation of how TRJ declined to engage with ACAS Early Conciliation, allowing a claim to move forward, in The Recruitment Junction – ACAS Early Conciliation Refusal and Timeline.

Profiles, culture and public narrative

Beyond the legal and regulatory angles there is a cultural story. Several pieces look at how TRJ presents itself to the world and how that sits alongside the experience described here. These include:

• From Second Chances to Shut Doors: The Beverley Brooks Paradox, an evidence based profile of the CEO.
• The Recruitment Junction, Christian values, and the gap between words and deeds, a look at public claims about Christian ethos versus the treatment of a referred neurodivergent service user.
• Clean Slate Solutions vs The Recruitment Junction homepage comparison, which compares TRJ’s public facing messaging with another justice sector organisation.

Public interest notice

This page is published in the public interest. It records the experience of a disabled ex offender who was referred to The Recruitment Junction by the Probation Service, the decisions that followed, and the questions those decisions raise about equality law, safeguarding, data protection and honest use of public money.

Wherever possible, claims are supported by linked documents, FOI responses or regulator correspondence. Readers, funders and regulators are encouraged to review the primary materials and reach their own view about whether TRJ’s conduct meets the standard expected of a publicly funded charity working with vulnerable people.