🛡️ How to Protect Your Record
This is the lawful, four-step process for making sure what is recorded about your family is accurate — and for creating a record outside Cafcass's control when it isn't.
The courts already know this happens
In Re F [2016] EWHC 2149, a mother's recording proved she had been misquoted in a psychologist's report — the court called the fabricated quotes "wholly unacceptable". In Re B [2017] EWCA Civ 1579, the Court of Appeal noted "shocking examples of professional malpractice" that were "established only because of covert recording".
RECORD — create the ground truth
Cafcass's own Operating Framework (para 2.27, since January 2014) says, verbatim:
Recording your own conversations is not illegal, and the Family Justice Council's guidance (May 2025) confirms covert recordings are neither prohibited nor automatically inadmissible in family proceedings — courts judge them on authenticity, completeness, relevance and probative value.
- ✅ Ask for open recording first, in writing — cite para 2.27. Their answer, either way, is evidence.
- ✅ Record your own meetings and calls with Cafcass. Keep complete, unedited originals with dates — selective clips destroy credibility.
- ✅ Make a same-day written note of every interaction — contemporaneous notes are evidence too.
COMPLAIN — put it on their system
When a report misstates facts, complain to the Cafcass Complaints team — even though they will likely deflect it. Why bother? Three reasons, and none depends on winning:
- It is logged. Every complaint enters their system, is reported in themes to their Board, and feeds their published Annual Report.
- It unlocks the Ombudsman. The PHSO only takes complaints after the organisation had a chance to put things right.
- Their own policy offers your remedy. The current Complaints Policy (§5.2) lists as remedies: "Amending Cafcass records or clarifying things with court." Quote it back to them.
Their timescales: acknowledgement in 2 working days · early resolution ~1 week · investigation up to 20 working days. They will not reinvestigate the same issue twice — so make the first complaint count: one page, factual, no adjectives, with your evidence.
Know the history — a decade of narrowing what they'll hear:
| Date | What Cafcass said |
|---|---|
| Jan 2014 | Operating Framework §2.27: "We should have nothing to fear from covert recording… I have nothing to hide." |
| Dec 2017 | Complaints procedure amended: "Evidence obtained by deception, including audio recordings made covertly … will not be accepted" — directly contradicting the public-facing framework. |
| 2023–24 (current) | The explicit recording ban is gone — but the policy now excludes all substantive report-accuracy challenges from the complaints process (§3.8), keeping only trivial slips (a name, a date of birth) in scope. |
The public position says nothing to fear from recordings; the machinery has steadily narrowed how a recording — or any real accuracy challenge — can be heard internally. That is exactly why Steps 3 and 4 exist: they move your challenge onto ground Cafcass does not control.
RECTIFY — the GDPR data-accuracy request (law, not policy)
Cafcass's complaints policy is an internal document it wrote and can rewrite. The UK GDPR is not. As a data controller, Cafcass owes you statutory duties an internal policy cannot remove:
- Accuracy — Art 5(1)(d): personal data must be accurate; inaccurate data must be rectified or erased without delay.
- Rectification — Art 16: you can require inaccurate data corrected and incomplete data completed.
- Restriction — Art 18: while accuracy is contested, ask them to restrict processing of the disputed data.
- Notification — Art 19: if data is corrected or restricted, they must tell recipients (including the court, where relevant) — and tell you who was notified.
For serious infringements the ICO's powers extend to a statutory maximum fine of £17.5 million (the higher turnover-based maximum applies to commercial undertakings). That's not the likely outcome of one complaint — it's why the duty cannot simply be waved away: it is policed by an independent regulator, not by Cafcass itself.
How to do it: build an accuracy schedule — for every disputed item: location (document/page/paragraph) → exact wording → why inaccurate → your evidence (including a complete recording where lawful and relevant) → the exact correction requested. Send it to the DPO. A response is due within one calendar month. Since 19 June 2026, organisations must also run a formal data-protection complaints process (acknowledgement within 30 days).
One honest limit: opinion is harder than fact. A professional opinion isn't "inaccurate" just because you dispute it — but if it rests on demonstrably wrong facts, challenge those facts, and ask for your evidence and a prominent dispute note to be attached to the record.
Subject: UK GDPR Art 16 rectification and Art 18 restriction request — [case reference]
Dear Data Protection Officer,
I am [name], [relationship to case], Cafcass reference [ref]. This is a request under Articles 16 and 18 UK GDPR.
I contest the accuracy of the following personal data: [for each item: document, page/paragraph → exact wording → why inaccurate → evidence attached → exact correction required]
Please: (1) verify each item against the evidence supplied; (2) rectify inaccurate data and complete incomplete data under Art 16; (3) restrict processing of each contested item under Art 18 while checking it; (4) where an item is an allegation or opinion, clearly label it and its source, and attach my challenge where correction is not accepted; (5) notify recipients of any correction under Art 19, including the court where relevant, and identify them to me; (6) respond to every item within the statutory period.
If you refuse any part, please identify the legal basis, place a prominent note on the record that I dispute the data and why, and confirm my right to complain to the ICO and seek a judicial remedy.
Yours faithfully, [Name]
EXTERNAL RECORD — the Ombudsman and the ICO
Two independent bodies, two parallel routes — both create records outside Cafcass's control that they cannot edit, dismiss or close.
4a. Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) — for maladministration and service failure. Cafcass's own complaints policy names it as the escalation route. The MP filter is real: your complaint must be referred by an MP — complete the PHSO form and ask your constituency MP's office to refer it (routine casework for them; find yours at parliament.uk). Generally within one year, after Step 2 gave Cafcass its chance. Bonus: your MP's office now has your case on file too — a second external record.
4b. ICO — for data-protection failures: ignored rectification requests, unexplained refusals, missed statutory deadlines. Complain within 3 months of your last meaningful contact with Cafcass. Send a short chronology, your request and their response (or silence), and only the key evidence. The ICO can require correction and process changes — it will not re-decide your court case or award compensation.
📅 The pattern step: repeat allegations
If the same allegation is investigated, disproven — then raised again — the system treats it as brand new. You must make the pattern visible. Build a one-page chronology: allegation → investigated → outcome → allegation repeated, and attach the disproven outcomes. In front of a judge, that table is more powerful than any amount of narrative.
⚠️ Important Reality Check
A complaint cannot change your Court Order.
These steps deal with the accuracy of the record. If you disagree with a recommendation to the court, that must be challenged in court — see our companion guide below for exactly how the record and the courtroom connect.
Disclaimer: This is general information, not legal advice — consult a family solicitor about your specific case. Never breach a court order or the privacy rules of family proceedings (s12 Administration of Justice Act 1960); never publish recordings; never record children. Policy quotations verified against published sources on 18 July 2026: Cafcass Operating Framework (2014) §2.27; Cafcass Complaints Policy v4.1 (Nov 2024); FJC Guidance on Covert Recordings (May 2025); Medway Council v A [2015] EWFC B66; M v F [2016] EWFC 29; Re F [2016] EWHC 2149; Re B [2017] EWCA Civ 1579; ICO guidance on rectification and complaints; Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.