Subtitle: The Stage 2 complaint outcome was a masterclass in denial. Then, on the very same day, they committed a serious GDPR breach. Let’s unpack this mess.
I recently received the long-awaited “Stage 2” response from South Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership regarding my formal complaint about the abusive Adult Support and Protection (ASP) process I was subjected to.
Spoiler alert: It was a complete whitewash.
The letter from Head of Service Stewart Marshall is a textbook example of institutional gaslighting. It’s a blanket denial of any wrongdoing, wrapped in corporate jargon and a classic non-apology: “I apologise that your experience… has not been the standard you would expect.” Not an apology for their actions, but for my experience of them. The core grievances—the lack of neurodivergent-specific policies, the dangerous conflation of support and protection, and the abuse of the ASP process itself—were all dismissed. The message was clear: “We followed our own internal logic, so we see no problem.”
But the story didn’t end there. The very same day I received this dismissal, a new and serious breach occurred.
The Double Standard & A Clear GDPR Breach
On the day I gave explicit, written consent for my MSP to receive my personal data (a process the council itself insists upon with signed letters), Senior Manager Sandra Rae—who co-signed the investigation into my complaint—disclosed my personal information to a third-party organisation called “Circles” without my explicit written consent.
Let that sink in. The council demands a signed letter from me to share data with my elected representative, yet a manager freely shares my data with an external agency without following the same rigorous consent process. This isn’t just hypocrisy; this is indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
How is this Indirect Discrimination?
1. Provision, Criterion, or Practice (PCP): The council applies a strict, formal consent process for some data sharing (e.g., with my MSP) but operates an ad-hoc, inconsistent, and less rigorous process internally.
2. Disadvantage: As a neurodivergent adult navigating a complex and distressing complaint process, I am placed at a significant disadvantage by this inconsistency. The stress and cognitive load of managing opaque and unpredictable data handling practices is disproportionately higher for me. It creates a barrier to safe and fair engagement.
3. The Link: The council’s own complaint response admits there are no specific policies or mandatory training for supporting neurodivergent adults. This systemic failure creates an environment where neurodivergent individuals’ needs for clarity, consistency, and explicit communication are not met. This inconsistent application of data-sharing rules is a direct consequence of that failing policy environment, putting people like me at a disadvantage.
Contradictions and Inconsistencies: The Paper Trail Doesn’t Lie
Analysing the Stage 2 letter against the follow-up email from Stewart Marshall reveals a pattern of contradictory messaging.
In Stage 2 Letter (07/01/26) In Follow-Up Email The Contradiction
Tone & Resolution: “This response concludes South Ayrshire Council’s internal complaints procedure.” The matter is presented as closed. Action: “I have taken legal advice on this matter…” and threatens police involvement over my social media posts. They claim the complaint is concluded internally, yet are actively seeking legal advice and contemplating police action regarding the same matter. This is not a “closed” case; it’s an escalation.
Commitment to Learning: “All staff involved have agreed to reflect on the care provided for future learning.” Threat: “If this continues, legal advice is that we alert police colleagues… in relation to malicious communication.” Where is the “reflection” and “trauma-informed approach” promised in the letter? Jumping straight to legal threats against someone who has just been through a traumatic process is the antithesis of trauma-informed care. It’s intimidation.
Offering Support: “I can look to prioritise any other social care support that you might find helpful.” Conditional Support: “Whilst the complaints process is ongoing, I would like to offer you a face-to-face Social Work Assessment… I have asked for my social work colleagues to refrain from direct contact… until I have received a response from you in relation to the offer of an assessment.” Support is now presented as intertwined with the complaint process and is used as a lever. The offer of an assessment comes alongside a directive for staff to cease contact, effectively creating a communication vacuum unless I comply with their preferred next step. This feels manipulative, not supportive.
Focus on “Open, Honest Relationships”: Boasts of “a focus on open, honest and respectful relationships.” Silencing Attempt: “Can I respectfully request that you no longer post images or name staff… If this continues… we alert police.” An “open, honest relationship” does not involve demanding silence and threatening legal consequences for public advocacy. It involves addressing the root causes of the public criticism.
Conclusion
What we have here is a perfect storm of failure: a whitewashed complaint outcome, a serious, discriminatory GDPR breach, and contradictory communications that veer from faux-concern to legal threat.
The council admits it has no specific policies for neurodivergent adults, then acts in a way that disproportionately harms us. It dismisses my complaints about process abuse, then abuses data-sharing processes. It talks about collaboration, then attempts to silence me.
This is not accountability. This is damage control at the expense of a vulnerable constituent.
I have now raised this data breach with the council’s Information Governance Team.
The fight for transparency and justice continues.
#SouthAyrshireCouncil #AdultProtection #GDPRBreach #EqualityAct2010 #Neurodiversity #IndirectDiscrimination #SPSO #Failings