F learned that he should perhaps ask his MP for help with his concerns. Sir Michael should have at least considered them and advice as to what he should do next.
I would be naive that Sir Michael was not aware that a serious breach of CONFIDENTIALITY had occurred by RBKC’s disclosure of F’s HIV related information.
His staff should have perhaps undertaken some research, which would have shown that handling of F’s specific information is governed by not only Common Law of Confidentiality, but also NHS Statutory Restrictions on data handling.
Therefore, F should NOT have presented his complaint to the ICO and eventually ask Sir Michael to sign and submit a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The matter should have been handled by the NHS, as later advised by the ICO, in whose remit it is NOT to deal with this kind of information.
It is a matter of conjecture whether Sir Michael could have contacted RBKC and ask for them to have a new look at F’s concerns.
On 19th October 2012, as required, F asked Sir Malcolm to sign and submit F’s complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, PHSO about the ICO’s handling of F’s request for advice about disclosure of his information.
That’s where Sir Michael’s involvement stopped.