John and Sarah were in the process of adopting two siblings, Elsa and Robyn*.
Robyn needed some hospital treatment. The discharge letter was sent to the Local Authority. The letter had John and Sarah’s name and address on it. Unfortunately, the social worker sent the hospital letter (unredacted) to the birth family.
During the adoption process, the birth parents raised numerous complaints about John and Sarah some concerning references in the contact book (the book used for the birth family to write details of what they did during contact with the children). For example, the birth mother referred to going to a particular village to buy some shoes. This was the village where John and Sarah lived. John and Sarah raised this with the social worker as they were concerned the birth mother knew where they lived. The social worker said this was a coincidence and there could not have been a data breach.
One week before the final adoption hearing, the birth mother told her social worker that she knew John and Sarah’s names and address. The birth parents also told the social worker that they were happy to be “so close” to the children and that they frequently visited the area where John and Sarah lived.
This comment was worrying for John and Sarah who after carrying out a risk assessment with the support of the Local Authority, it was agreed that it was necessary for them to leave their home. They moved immediately to an Airbnb which the Local Authority agreed to pay for. John and Sarah had to pay for this upfront and were then reimbursed by the Local Authority (there was a delay processing these payments).
The Local Authority asked John and Sarah to put together details of the support they wanted, to include moving house. The Local Authority agreed with John and Sarah’s plan to move house but when the move went ahead refused to fund the costs and said it must go through solicitors. They also refused to pay for more than six weeks in the Airbnb and therefore John and Sarah had to buy a new house in urgency.
As a result, John and Sarah had no option but to instruct solicitors. If not, they would not be able to recover the costs they had incurred moving house; something the Local Authority had advised them to do and had promised to pay for.
It took the Local Authority more than two years before they were prepared to make a partial admission of liability and make an interim payment to John and Sarah. It then took a further year before a final settlement was reached more than £200,000.
What did this mean for the family?
John and Sarah did not initially want to appoint solicitors and were happy to liaise with the Local Authority directly but sadly would not have been able to recover their relocation costs without legal advice and support. Two of the key items they needed to recover were the cost of the relocation itself (packing and moving their possessions) as well as the stamp duty cost. Had it not been for the data breach they would not have been looking to relocate at all so would not have had to face these costs.
Outside of the financial cost of the breach, John and Sarah were also concerned about the three-week delay between the Local Authority being aware of the data breach and telling them. Thankfully, nothing bad came out of this delay but things could have easily taken a turn to the worse considering that the safety of the children had been one of the main reasons they were placed for adoption by the Local Authority in the first place.
*All names changed for anonymity purposes
How can we help?
At Enable Law we have years of experience helping families get the right support following an adoption data breach. To have a free, confidential discussion about the ways we may be able to help you call Gary Walker or a team member on 0800 044 8488 or fill in our contact form so we can call you back at a time convenient to you.
