therecruitmentjunction.co.uk

If you are part of a nominated organisation

For senior leaders and trustees

If your organisation is shortlisted or wins while a disabled service user has raised concerns, you do not need to panic. You do need to take a grown up approach to evidence and accountability.

• Ask for a clear internal note of any live disputes, including SARs and Equality Act requests.
• Check that email blocking or contact restrictions are not being used while rights are active.
• Review public statements about funding, impact and values against the documents.
• Ensure someone with real authority owns the response, not just comms or PR.

In the TRJ case, the lack of a calm, documented, trustee level response is one reason this material now exists in public.

For front line and support staff

Staff often notice when something feels off long before it appears in a board pack. If you are watching an award roll out while worrying about how a service user has been treated, you are not imagining the tension.

• Write down what you have seen, with dates and neutral language.
• Check your whistleblowing policy and who counts as a protected person.
• Use internal routes in writing wherever safe, not just corridor conversations.
• If internal routes are blocked, look at external options below.

If you are a service user with concerns

1. Get your evidence in one place

Evidence does not need to be pretty. It needs to be clear. Screenshots, email headers, PDFs and notes are all useful if they show what happened, when and who was involved.

• Save copies of key emails, letters and screenshots somewhere you control.
• Note dates and times of calls, including who you spoke to and what was said.
• Keep copies of any SAR or Equality Act requests and responses.
• Record any email blocking or access restrictions, including bounce messages.

The TRJ evidence archive shows how a simple, polite email and a 20 minute withdrawal decision can become a long running public record when handled badly.

2. Decide what you want from raising concerns

Not every situation needs a lawsuit. You might want an apology, a fix for your own case, better practice for the next person, or just a record that you were not imagining things. Being clear with yourself helps you pick the right routes.

3. Possible routes to use

• Organisation complaints process and safeguarding or data protection contacts.
• Funders and commissioners listed on the TRJ funding page.
• Regulators such as the Charity Commission, ICO and equality enforcement routes.
• The Criminal Justice Alliance itself, where concerns relate to awards.

The Reasonable Adjustment site contains live examples of letters, SAR follow up and complaints that you can read and adapt, not copy word for word.

Whistleblower and evidence tools

Some situations are too sensitive or risky to run through ordinary complaint emails. In others, internal routes have been exhausted or blocked. In those cases, you may want something more robust.

If you sit on an awards panel or funder board

If you are part of the Criminal Justice Alliance, another awards panel, or a funder board, the tools you need are slightly different. You are not usually resolving an individual case. You are deciding whether it is responsible to endorse and bankroll an organisation in its current state.

• Read the CJA Awards hub overview and linked investigations.
• Compare nominees’ public statements to grant records and FOI responses.
• Check whether disabled service users have alleged blocking, erasure of data or retaliation.
• Ask for clear, written responses from the organisation rather than verbal reassurance only.

If you decide to continue backing an organisation despite clear concerns, have the confidence to own that decision on the record. Silence sends its own message.

How the TRJ case fed into The Reasonable Adjustment and Ki-Ki

The Recruitment Junction dispute did not only produce one annoyed service user. It exposed how fragile digital and governance foundations can be in small charities, and how hard it is for ordinary people to prove what actually happened without solid logs and preserved copies.

The Reasonable Adjustment exists to publish evidence based write ups and preserved documents that can be inspected by anyone. Ki-Ki exists to help small organisations avoid creating the same mess in the first place by getting their web, email and logging basics into a shape that stands up to scrutiny.

The CJA Awards hub sits in the middle. It links real world awards decisions to the evidence available, so that nobody has to rely on slogans alone.

To see a detailed breakdown of how this specific case shaped both projects, read How the TRJ case shaped The Reasonable Adjustment and Ki-Ki.

Related CJA Awards pages

• CJA Awards hub overview
• 2025 Outstanding Small Organisation The Recruitment Junction
• Digital evidence, logs and award due diligence
• Fair process needs facts
• Reasonable adjustments for shortlisted organisations
• Legal context Employment Tribunal and County Court
• How the TRJ case shaped The Reasonable Adjustment and Ki-Ki
• CJA Awards FAQ