Son Claims Council Monitored Him in Dispute Over Mother's Garden Gate

Internal emails indicate that Derbyshire County Council, led by Reform UK councillors, placed an 81-year-old woman's son "under surveillance" and blocked his requests for information during a dispute over his mother's garden gate. The emails, disclosed following a data subject access request, suggest an effort to monitor and restrict David Ball's access to documents related to his mother Helene Ball's case.

Helene Ball, 81, had been engaged in a three-year legal battle with the council after a fence was installed in concrete blocking her garden gate in 2023. The gate provided access to a council-owned car park, a route the family had used for nearly six decades. A judge ruled in Mrs. Ball's favor, stating her continued use of the access constituted prescriptive rights, and ordered the council to pay approximately £50,000 in costs and ensure the access was not impeded again.

Following the judgment, Derbyshire County Council placed 54 large concrete blocks, described as 'Lego-style,' outside Mrs. Ball's home. The council stated these were placed to reinstate her access, but the move further distressed her.

During this period, David Ball was researching the case on his mother's behalf, specifically seeking information about signage at the car park that might have been relevant to their claim for prescriptive access. Emails from Allen Shepherd, the council's head of estates, corporate property, corporate services, and transformation, instructed staff at the record office not to provide documents to Mr. Ball, citing that it could undermine the council's case. Mr. Shepherd also requested to be informed of Mr. Ball's visits, arrival times, and the information he requested.

"When I received the Subject Access Request material and realised they had been tracking my visits, sharing my emails, and accessing my private information, my stomach sank – I felt physically sick," David Ball stated. "This is Derbyshire, not North Korea. No resident should ever find themselves being monitored by their own council for simply asking questions."

One email from Mr. Shepherd to the council's corporate records manager read: "We are currently in litigation with Helena Ball and her son David Ball is acting on her behalf. The Council are not obligated to provide any of this information, therefore please can I ask you desist from providing any further information as it could well work against us."

In another communication, Mr. Shepherd reiterated: "Please can you send me copies of all of his requests and the information you have sent him to date and let me know how much we have received in fees for your time, postage and photo copying etc, as no doubt he will be looking to recover these costs."

Internal communications from the records office staff also show they were noting Mr. Ball's visits. One employee wrote: "I can see from the Archives Card record that David Ball visit on May 2, 2025, there is no photo licence for him around this date. I did see that he has also visited on other occasions, do you know roughly when he would have consulted CT5552 and I can check again for a photo licence?"

Mr. Shepherd had previously been criticized by the judge in the original ruling. Judge Robert Brown described Mr. Shepherd as "surprisingly combative" and noted his "evidence consisted of unsubstantiated assertions," adding that one of his responses was "totally irrelevant" and "most unhelpful."

A spokesperson for Derbyshire County Council stated that Mr. Ball was provided with the information he requested during his visits to the Record Office. The spokesperson added, "We are sorry that Mr Ball feels he was under surveillance. Attendance at the Record Office is recorded as part of standard procedures to ensure the security of records and the appropriate management of access to archive materials. These arrangements apply to all visitors and are not specific to Mr Ball."