Ms Leverne Parker, LLB(Hons) is RBKC’s Chief Solicitor and the Head of Regeneration Law. We assume the solicitor who was and still is responsible for legal matters relating to Grenfell Tower disaster. And still getting bad press, wherever she turns.
She is also RBKC’s ‘Monitoring Officer‘, whose responsibility is to ensure that employees comply with the various legislations, guidelines and codes of practice, set by central government, in the execution of theirs daily tasks. it is her duty to report any contravention.
Her Linkedin profile, which is now woefully out of date, would confirm her experience with work, in local government and well versed in how to “sail close to the wind”, to ensure minimal compliance with legislation, as is addressed on other websites, particularly the GRENFELL one.
Strangely, she must have suffered from a temporary lapse of sanity, when she chose not apply this canning expertise in handling of F’s matter.
Ironically, this woman herself caused the unprecedented disclosure of F’s HIV+ status and related clinical information, without his consent or even knowledge, as described on the disclosure of information page.
She is single handedly responsible for the unnecessary disclosure of F’s HIV related information and the ensuing distress and anxiety caused to him. Disclosure so rare, that there is NO PRECEDENT, addressed on the Disclosure of Information page.
This LLB(Hons) suddenly chose to ignore/avoid the existence of CONFIDENTIALITY and its implication. When it comes to questions about RBKC Councillors or staff, their right to CONFIDENTIALITY, is swiftly evoked; as was when F questioned Mr Williams’ qualifications. However, in F’s case, this was ignored with alarming indifference.
Her actions endorse the Law Commission’s findings that ‘local authorities have very poor understanding of data protection legislation.’
It can be alleged that WITHOUT consulting any of the applicable legislation, codes of practice and guidelines; and very carefully check all of the documents, Ms Parker just slapped a cover letter on the large bunch of documents and send them on their merry way to her cronies down at Millbank.
It is clear that she was NOT aware what information was contained in those documents. Why should she? Nobody is likely to ever check them, let alone the LGO.
,For example, she had no idea that the large bundle contained many unverified and unsigned Care Plan Reviews, dating back to 2000. Information on some of them clearly subject to NHS Statutory Restrictions on data handling, as they clearly refer not only to F’s HIV+ status, but disclose the progress of the condition, the life saving medication F must take and the inevitable side effects he suffers as a consequence.
The bundle also contained 17 pages relating to F’s former domestic help’s INCOME TAX ONLINE DECLARATION BONUS, which had absolutely NOTHING to do no only with the assessment, but also RBKC. F merely asked RBKC how this bonus should be handled, as it was credited to his Direct Payments account. Ms Parker chose NOT to provide justification for the disclosure of this information.
It can be assume that Ms Parker also replied to HCPC, stating that ‘if a formal request for information is issued by legal department, F’s Social Worker could not have prevented access to F’s confidential file and cull more than 130 documents from it. Some containing F’s HIV relevant information, for which the LGO did not ask. RBKC has so far been unable to provide this crucial document, which would have been superior to F’s Social Worker’s professional legal obligation, to ‘keep his information safe and confidential at all times’.
.It may be assumed that by November 2014, Ms Parker realised what had happened and out of the blue, on 25th November 2014, came up with a proposal of ‘how to move forward to resolve the matter‘. She offered to F that RBKC delete the HIV relevant information, providing F would agree to the fact that as a result RBKC would not be able to answer any questions about the matter, should F brought any action against RBKC, as described on the ‘Deletion page‘ of this blog.. F declined this absurd offer and even more absurd caveat. How could she attach any caveats to a deletion of information, RBKC was not entitled to have in the first place and should have deleted in May 2010, when F presented amendment to his Information sharing Agreement. F has NOT heard from Ms Parker since.