Mr Henry Leak

At the time of F’s assessment and subsequent complaints, Mr Leak was a Team Leader of the Adult Social Care Team at its offices in Ladbroke Grove, North Kensington.

He was a registered Social Worker with the HCPC.

Mr Pedro Williams, apparently was F’s assigned Social Worker, who carried out F’s ASSESSMENT in October 2010 and signed the ‘decision letter’ dated  13th December 2010.  Until this time, F had no contact with this man..

F understands that Mr Williams went over the horizon in early 2011.  Nothing new, as the turnover in Social Workers is an endemic problem at many local authorities.

As there was no ‘assigned’ Social Worker, Mr Leak, the Team Leader became F’s defacto Social Worker, becoming the guardian of F’s confidential file.   His professional legal obligation was to “keep F’s information safe and confidential at all times”, as stated in  his regulators, HCPC, ‘Guidance on Confidentiality‘.

It is clear that these provisions went out of the window, when RBKC disclosed F’s HIV related information.

It is clear that during his Team Leadership, Mr Leak was very lax indeed, regarding proper completion of Care Reviews and Assessments.  In F’s case NOT a single Care Plan Reviews completed by various Social Workers  since 2000 until 2008, were unverified and unsigned by F.   Likewise, his Needs Assessment carried out by Mr Williams in October 2010, was not even seen by F, let alone reviewed and signed as being TRUE.

When asked, Mr Leak told F that the Assessment document need NOT be signed, as a Social Worker was present.  This was questioned with many local authorities.  NONE agreed with Mr Leak’s statement.  They all either provided those assessed, with a copy of the assessment document, asking it to be reviewed, signed and returned.  Very few did not ask for the document to be signed, but asked to make any comments.  Those assessed were ALL GIVEN a copy of their  assessment.  This was NOT the case  in F’s assessment,

F was did not even see the documents, let alone review it and sign it as being TRUE. He was not given a copy of it with the ‘decision letter’.

Had F not asked for copies of documents sent by RBKC to the LGO, he would have NEVER discovered that ALL of his Care Plan Reviews, as well as the Assessment documents, were UNSIGNED.  In fact, F never knew of these documents’ existence.

This prompted his question to a senior Professor of Law about the need to sign documents.

It can be safely assumed that Mr Leak, acting on Ms Baillie’s  instructions, told  his Team NOT to given those assessed to review and sign the document.

Very easy way to hoodwink the needy, often disabled and/or elderly individuals, who do not know any better, to accept whatever is decided on documents they have never even seen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.