At the time of of F’s assessment and the subsequent disclosure, this woman was RBKC’s Executive Director for Housing, Health and Social Care. She was at that time a Registered Social Worker with the HCPC. She has no other academic or professional qualifications.
This woman told F on 18th May 2011, because he was given in 2001 a flimsy flyer, requesting comments, it was NOT necessary to comply with paragraph 107 of the assessment guidelines and offer F unconditional opportunity to challenge the outcome of the assessment.
She somehow forgot that in 2009, a new important legislation, the Local Authority Social Services and the National Health Complaints(England)Regulations 2009, was enacted, streamlining the Complaints process. Therefore, the information on the 2001 flyer became redundant. There is NO documentary evidence that F was, as he should have been, made aware of this new legislation.
Furthermore, this intentional omission, was at odds with the Appeal decision in Savva v RBKC, which states that letters should be self-contained and NOT refer to anything else.
Ms Daintith also told Fin the same letter, that ‘ All our procedures and policies are in line with the Department of Health’s guidelines and there is no evidence to suggest that our service users are put at any risk as a result of them.’
This statement would be correct, had F’s concerns were treated in accordance with these guidelines. Using hindsight, where was the ‘Confidentiality – NHS Code of Practice’ and its paragraph 46? Or, the Department of Health’s ‘Data Protection Act 1998 – Guidance to Social Services’, or the ICO’s “Data Sharing Code of Practice”, section 7?
Perhaps, most importantly, where HIV information is concerned, also Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, as in I v Finland and Z v Finland at the ECHR; the considerations in Brent v N P. Also, the distress and anxiety the disclosure of his HIV information may have had, as in Soho HIV Clinic event.
In the same letter F was told to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.
The same letter informed F that ‘Our Adult Social Care Services were inspected last year by the Care Quality Commission and were found to be ‘excellent‘. However, when F asked CQC about this, he was told that NO such grading exists. Providers are found either to be complying with regulations, or not. At time one of RBKC’s Residential facilities was in need of improvement’. Hardly an ‘excellent’ grading.
There is also an ongoing discussion why F was referred to the Local Government Ombudsman, as he was on 18th May 2011, rather that the Health Service Commissioner, as provided for by Complaints Act.
It was Ms Daintith, who on 13th September 2011 issued a memo to Ms Parker, forwarding the requested documents by LGO in F’s complaint. The bunch contained not only the requested “assessment documents”, but also the not asked for Care Plan Reviews, which not only disclosed F’s HIV status, but also detailed clinical details of his condition’s progress, the life saving medication he must take and the inevitable nasty side effects he suffers as a consequence.
Cleverly and intentionally, she avoided to answer any F’s concerns, particularly, why was he NOT given the opportunity to complete the assessment questionnaire before the assessment date. Had she done so, you would NOT be reading this Blog.
F’s HIV specific information should have been removed from his files in May 2010, as requested by F in an amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement, addressed to this woman. She not only chose not to respond, but also not to take any action on F’s amendment. Interestingly, F’s amendment was also a NOTICE, in line with paragraph 10 of the DPA, which was also completely ignored by Ms Daintith.
It can be alleged that this amoral woman, together with Ms Baillie and Mr Leak, possessing the same heinous traits, cooked up a script, to be adhered to by all of them:. To ensure that F and perhaps MANY OTHERS, were NEVER made aware, during the assessment process, of the existence of the Assisted Self Assessment Questionnaire, ASAQ, which they could have completed by themselves BEFORE the assessment date, as provided for by paragraph 84 of the Department of Health Assessment Guidelines . They succeeded! F was unaware, until 11th FEBRUARY 2012, 16 MONTHS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT, of its existence. It was on this date, when he received the requested copies of documents sent to the LGO, that F SAW FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THE INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, UNVERIFIED AND UNSIGNED ASAQ. Had F NOT ASKED for these copies, he would HAVE NEVER DISCOVERED THAT AT THE CENTRE OF HIS ASSESSMENT WAS NOTHING BUT A FORGERY. This is addressed on the Assessment page.
Whether other people were affect by this ploy, will never be known, as fortunately for RBKC and other local authorities, the LGO have NO powers to impose any controls, or God forbid, an independent external audit of the assessment process, which at the present time is NOT subject to any external oversight. The authorities can, and perhaps do, exactly as they feel fit.
Furthermore, the large bundle of documents provided by Ms Dainith, also contained 17 pages relating to F’s former domestic cleaner’s INCOME TAX DECLARATION REBATE.
As a result of the above, it can be safely alleged that RBKC was not at all that concerned as to what was sent to the LGO. The whole “complaint process”, the request letter and the documents, were nothing but a sorry, sick charade; a red herring, trying to give the impression that a proper, democratic process of investigation was under way. .
Ms Daintith’s other qualities were picked up by “Dame” on the “From The Hornets Nest” blog.