From Press Release to Reality: Exposing the Gaps in ESCC’s Version of Events
The Case File > procedural-irregularities
Date: 19/01/2026
From Press Release to Reality: Exposing the Gaps in ESCC’s Version of Events
On 23 December 2022, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) published a press release titled:
“Faked letter lands Blue Badge applicant in court”
(The Newsroom – ESCC:https://news.eastsussex.gov.uk/2022/12/23/faked-letter-lands-blue-badge-applicant-in-court/)
This statement was subsequently reproduced by multiple media outlets, including The Argus, Sussex Express, ITV News Meridian, Yahoo News and various aggregators.
However, a direct comparison between:
- the ESCC press release,
- the witness statement of Investigations Officer Mark Jobling,
- the witness statement of Medical Secretary Mandy Covey,
reveals significant procedural inconsistencies, unsupported claims, and departures from standard NHS and local authority protocols.
🔥 1. “The hospital confirmed” — contradicted by the official documents
The ESCC article states:
“When contacted, the hospital involved confirmed the letter had not come from them.”
This assertion was repeated across all derivative media.
❌ Yet no such confirmation exists in the official evidence.
Neither witness statement contains:
- a statement from the NHS Trust,
- a statement from a clinician,
- a statement from a clinical manager,
- a statement from Information Governance,
- a statement from the Caldicott Guardian.
✔ The only person who expresses an opinion is a medical secretary, not a doctor and not an authorised NHS representative.
Covey states:
“Upon viewing this letter I immediately drew the conclusion that it was not genuine.”
This is a personal impression, not an institutional confirmation.
🔥 2. The medical secretary acted outside her professional remit
Covey describes her role as:
- typing medical letters,
- answering telephone calls.
Despite this, her statement shows she:
- analysed grammar and syntax,
- assessed clinical content,
- compared documents,
- drew conclusions about authenticity,
- accessed clinical records,
- compared a 2019 neurology letter with the 2022 document.
❌ None of these tasks fall within the scope of a medical secretary.
❌ No NHS policy authorises administrative staff to conduct document authenticity assessments.
🔥 3. Access to medical records occurred without any documented NHS procedure
Covey states:
“I checked the electronic records for Mr Gresta…”
Jobling confirms that Covey accessed the clinical records.
❌ Yet neither statement mentions:
- authorisation for access,
- identity verification of the ESCC officer,
- verification of his legal powers,
- Information Governance involvement,
- Caldicott Guardian consultation,
- external enquiry logging,
- any formal NHS protocol.
✔ The access to medical data appears to have occurred without any formal safeguards.
🔥 4. The “criminal investigation” has no documented legal basis
The ESCC article refers to:
“the council launched an investigation”
“criminal investigation”
Covey states:
“I was informed that he was carrying out a criminal investigation…”
Jobling states:
“I initiated a Criminal Investigation…”
❌ Neither witness provides:
- a warrant,
- statutory authority,
- written request,
- legal basis,
- procedural framework.
✔ ESCC does not possess criminal investigative powers.
The term “criminal investigation” appears to be self‑assigned.
🔥 5. The ESCC article attributes actions to the council that are not supported by the evidence
A) “The council noticed grammatical errors”
The article states:
“the council noticed obvious grammatical errors”
But:
- Jobling does not mention any grammatical analysis by ESCC,
- Covey — an NHS secretary — is the only person who comments on grammar.
❌ The article attributes to ESCC an assessment actually made by an NHS administrative employee.
🔥 6. Timeline inconsistencies
Covey
- reports a phone call on 12 May,
- reports a meeting on 18 May,
- evaluates the letter before checking the records,
- accesses clinical data without documented procedure.
Jobling
- does not mention the 12 May phone call,
- does not describe any NHS procedure,
- amplifies Covey’s conclusions,
- refers to a “criminal investigation” without legal basis.
❌ The two accounts do not fully align.
🔥 7. Absence of institutional procedures
Across both statements, there is no mention of:
- external enquiry registers,
- authorisation forms,
- identity verification protocols,
- access logging,
- IG or Caldicott escalation,
- involvement of qualified clinical staff.
❌ The entire process appears to have occurred outside standard NHS and local authority governance.
❄️ Conclusion
A comparison between the ESCC press release and the official witness statements reveals:
- no hospital confirmation, despite ESCC publicly claiming otherwise;
- access to medical records without documented NHS procedures;
- a “criminal investigation” with no legal foundation;
- administrative staff performing tasks outside their remit;
- claims in the ESCC article not supported by the witness evidence;
- multiple inconsistencies in the reconstruction of events.
These discrepancies raise serious questions regarding procedural integrity, data handling, and the accuracy of the public narrative disseminated by ESCC and subsequently repeated by the media.
Procedural Closure – Status Recorded
This notification was formally issued to all relevant entities, who were offered the opportunity to provide clarifications or counter‑documentation. As of the present date 24/05/2026, no objections, corrections, or alternative factual reconstructions have been submitted. The notification phase is therefore considered procedurally closed. A right of reply remains available, but any late submissions will not alter the factual framework established during the notification period.
