Sharing only what the nomination needs
A strong nomination does not need a full life history or every detail about a person’s home, work, or family. It needs enough context to show the help they gave, who was affected, and why the action matters. We keep the focus on the act of service, not on private detail for its own sake.
That means names, town or area, and a short account of the community impact are often enough. If a story can be told without a birth date, ID number, medical detail, or home address, then those details should stay out. The same rule applies when a nominee is a volunteer, carer, teacher, first responder, neighbour or local organiser.
- Share only relevant facts linked to the nomination
- Leave out ID numbers, account details, and home addresses
- Keep family information brief unless it is essential
- Use plain wording that matches what was actually seen or experienced
Consent before a name goes forward
Whenever possible, the nominee should know they are being put forward. Consent protects people from surprise publicity and helps avoid awkward situations if the story becomes public. If the nominee is unable to give consent because of age, illness, safety, or another real limitation, the nomination should explain that carefully and only include what is needed.
We look for clear permission to share the nominee’s name and the core story. If the nomination mentions children, vulnerable adults, or sensitive community situations, we keep the detail narrow and relevant. When consent is uncertain, the nomination should not use guesswork or assumptions.
- Ask before sharing a name, photo, or personal story
- State who gave permission and for what was shared
- Use extra care where children or vulnerable people are involved
- Do not include private facts just to strengthen the story
What a privacy-safe nomination looks like
A privacy-safe nomination gives enough detail for the judging process to understand the contribution without exposing private information. The strongest entries usually describe what happened, where the help was needed, and what changed for the people involved. They do not lean on gossip, private hardship, or unrelated background detail.
Useful evidence can be kept modest too. A short statement from a witness, a dated note from the nominator, or a few clear examples can be enough. If images or documents are included, they should only show what is needed and should not reveal other people who did not agree to be part of the submission.
- Describe the action, not just the person’s character
- Keep evidence relevant and easy to verify
- Blur or remove unrelated faces, numbers, or addresses where needed
- Do not add sensitive detail to sound more dramatic
Our review path for private information
When a nomination is submitted, it is checked for clarity, consent, and whether the information shared matches the purpose of the awards programme. If something looks unnecessary or too sensitive, the nomination can be edited before it moves further. That protects both the nominee and the person making the nomination.
We also look at the way the story is framed. A careful account is usually better than a long account. If a detail does not help explain the nomination or the judging criteria, it can be left out. The review process is there to keep personal details limited, relevant, and properly handled.
- Check whether each detail supports the nomination
- Remove information that is not needed for judging
- Keep the tone factual rather than intrusive
- Use clear permission records where they are available
Privacy across public questions and updates
People often want to update a nomination after sending it, or ask how private details are managed. We handle those questions with the same rule: share only what is needed and keep the nominee’s personal information in the right place. A correction can be made without reopening private matters that do not belong in the record.
Public questions should never pull a nominee into unnecessary exposure. If the story is meant to stay low-profile, say so plainly. If new information is added, it should still follow the same boundaries around relevance, consent and care. The goal is not to strip the story bare, but to keep it fair and respectful.
- Use our contact form for privacy questions on a nomination
- Update only the details that affect the record
- Keep public-facing wording modest and accurate
- Avoid adding extra background that serves no clear purpose
Pricing, turnaround and what the service includes
Privacy guidance is part of the nomination support service and is handled as a practical working part of the process rather than a separate spectacle. The pricing approach depends on the level of support needed, such as a basic privacy check, help wording a sensitive story, or fuller guidance on consent and document handling. The aim is to keep the process straightforward for people across Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Gqeberha, Polokwane and other parts of South Africa.
The service includes privacy guidance, consent checks, sensitive information screening, and help deciding what should stay out of the nomination. It also includes aftercare if a submitted nomination needs a privacy correction or a cleaner version of a supporting statement. This is especially useful where the story involves children, health, community safety, or other personal matters.
- Privacy check for nomination text and support material
- Consent guidance for named nominees and shared stories
- Help removing unnecessary personal detail
- Aftercare for updates, corrections, and privacy concerns
Key facts
| Service type | Privacy guidance for nomination-based awards |
|---|---|
| Main purpose | Keep personal details relevant, limited, and consent-based |
| What is reviewed | Nomination wording, supporting notes, sensitive details, and permissions |
| Consent focus | Named nominee permission, with extra care for vulnerable people |
| Aftercare | Help with edits, corrections, and privacy questions after submission |
| Contact method | Our contact form on the contact page |
