A complaint about a £1,500 downsizing grant was never supposed to become an investigation into anti-social behaviour records, data retention policies and the limits of regulatory oversight. Yet that is precisely where this journey has led.
What began as an attempt to understand why a grant application had been mishandled uncovered the disclosure of complaint records, an ICO investigation that upheld a complaint against North Lanarkshire Council and a series of questions that remain unanswered. Chief among them is a simple one: how long should anti-social behaviour records be retained, and what happens when council practice appears to diverge from what the public is told through published retention schedules?
The articles Downsizing in North Lanarkshire – a Pensioner’s Never-Ending Journey and ICO Upholds Complaint Against North Lanarkshire Council were written under a pseudonym to protect our privacy and that of a complainant. North Lanarkshire Council, Police Scotland, elected representatives, regulators and others were aware of the reason for that anonymity.
For several reasons, I have now decided to set that anonymity aside.
The upheld ICO complaint
As reported previously, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) upheld a complaint relating to North Lanarkshire Council’s handling of personal data.
The ICO instructed the council to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a Subject Access Request was complete and that no outstanding matters remained. In my view, the council failed to comply fully with that instruction. The ICO acknowledged this position but advised that it would take no further action.
As a result, significant questions remained unanswered, including why the council was using the term “offender” within the complaint records and why certain records appeared to be retained beyond periods set out in published retention schedules.
What followed was a lengthy process of further complaints and correspondence, including an open letter to the council.
Council response: use of the term “offender”
The council advised that the terms “complainant” and “offender” had been replaced by “reporter” and “subject” in April 2020.
It accepted that historical records had not been updated to reflect that change and described this as an oversight. The council stated that, following my complaint, references to the term “offender” would be removed from the system.
Council response: record retention
The council explained its retention policy as follows:
“Retention is based on the Council’s obligations under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to maintain accurate records for service delivery, legal compliance and accountability.”
It further stated that the lawful basis relied upon is Article 6(1)(e) UK GDPR, namely that “processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller”.
The council advised that this approach applies to homeowners and businesses as well as tenants.
It also confirmed that complaint records associated with our former tenancy would remain on our file until five years after we moved home. Those very same records, about us, would remain on the complainants’ file until five years after they move from their property.
The significance of that position became apparent when compared with the council’s published retention schedules.
Published retention schedules
One example from North Lanarkshire Council’s retention schedule states:
Reference: 03.03.05
Function: Community Safety and Resilience
Activity: Community Safety
Record Series: Noise Complaint
Trigger: Date of last complaint for the offending property
Retention Period: 2 years
Disposal Action: Destroy
Notes: Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. 2004 asp 8. Section 43
In our case, an alleged noise complaint dating from 30 November 2014 was not upheld as anti-social behaviour. Despite this, the associated records have been retained for more than a decade and, under the council’s stated approach, could continue to be retained for many more years.
This raises wider questions about transparency and public awareness. While retention schedules are published, I have been unable to identify any public explanation that records relating to anti-social behaviour complaints may be retained under a different framework based on property occupancy and ongoing service requirements.
Rights, interests and transparency
UK GDPR requires public authorities to identify and document the lawful basis upon which personal information is processed.
Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office emphasises the need to consider the impact processing may have on individuals, including loss of control over personal information, restrictions on the exercise of rights and potential social or economic disadvantage.
I can only speak to the records disclosed in our own case. In my view, the interests, rights and freedoms of my husband, myself and the complainant have been adversely affected by the council’s handling of those records.
A broader question also arises: how many historical anti-social behaviour records contain information relating to children, young adults or vulnerable individuals, and for how long are such records retained?
Police Scotland
I asked the ICO to involve Police Scotland but that request was not acted upon and I submitted a report directly. In April 2025, Police Scotland advised that no criminal offence had been identified.
I subsequently pointed out that the investigation had been conducted without consideration of the first partial disclosure, without reference to the second disclosure submitted to Easterhouse Police Station and without access to the redacted material.
Following those concerns, Police Scotland referred themselves to Police Scotland Professional Standards and I received their findings on 28 April 2026. In summary, they found my complaint was ‘trivial in nature’.
I will request that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) review these findings – yet another thread on this journey.
Next steps
The issues I have raised are, in my view, serious and deserving of further scrutiny.
The various strands of this matter have led to many barriers and challenges in pursuit of due process, of information and of support – including my protected rights as a person with a disability.
An Equality Act claim against the Scottish National Party is in progress at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. Similar claims against North Lanarkshire Federation of Tenants & Residents and North Lanarkshire Council are in progress at Hamilton Sheriff Court.
This has led to the inevitable conclusion that continued public examination is necessary. For that reason, I have chosen to relinquish my anonymity and publish the correspondence, documentation and research accumulated over the past three and a half years through my own Substack publication.
A relative recently asked when I expect this journey to end.
My answer was simple: whilst ‘responsible’ persons and authorities disregard incontrovertible evidence and, somehow, hold me accountable for the failures of others, not likely in my lifetime.
North Lanarkshire Council has been approached for comment. No response has been received at the time of publication.
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
