This sorry saga could have been avoided, had RBKC not only followed F’s amendment to his ‘Information Sharing Agreement’ of May 2010, which turned out to be in line with paragraph 10 of the DPA 1998. but also followed the established regulations, guidelines and codes of practice.
To be fair, let’s permit a hypothetical, unconfirmed consideration : RBKC realised that they were obliged, in line with para 10-(3)-(a) or (b) of the DPA 1998 and ICO’s guidelines, to respond to F’s Amendment. Mr Leak’s response dated 17th May 2010 merely addressed the first part of F’s Amendment, requiring RBKC to seek his explicit consent when disclosure of his information is contemplated. However, he chose to ignore the 2nd part of the Amendment, instructing RBKC to delete all of his HIV relevant information from his files.
F became very upset and anxious that his HIV information, which should have been deleted, was disclosed to the LGO without his consent/knowledge and at odds with his Information Sharing Agreement, which he amended to ensure that a same event could not occur.
From the day he received RBKC’s justification for the disclosure, he began to research the matter. He was aware that CONFIDENTIALITY would apply in any case, making the matter more involved by the presence of HIV related information.
This was far easier said than done. From the very beginning he found that had he been a thief, child molested, rapist, murdered, illegal immigrant or a fraudster, he could avail himself of free legal advice. However, when he mentioned HIV, this was NOT available. NOT a single legal professional was prepared to give him the basic information; Not even to indicate that the information would be, in any case, CONFIDENTIAL.
It can be assumed that legal professionals shied away from this matter, because of dire dearth of legal opinion, legal precedent, guidance. about HIV information . There was no legal advice available, for free or for a fee.
The existence of a dire dearth of information and generally ending up in a legal cul-de-sac, he began to suffer from frustration, anxiety and distress due to the lack of progress.
F was absolutely astounded by the arrogant reply from Ms Caroline Maclean on 14th January 2013, informing F that RBKC had NO option but to disclose his information, in order to protect the Authority’s REPUTATION.…
Soon afterwards F began to suffer from stress related conjunctivitis, which could have had a serious effect on F, as he had in 2000 suffered from CMV. This could have been re-activated and could have caused permanent blindness. It can be safely assumed that Ms Maclean’s outrageously arrogant and lawfully faulty riposte, acted as a trigger for these events.
In all, F suffered 4 bouts of this condition in 2013.
In November 2013 he began to suffer from anxiety and distress, which was exacerbated by a prolonged bout of conjunctivitis, difficult to clear up. He began to suffer from various phobias. Most serious was rejection of his medication and unable to sleep. In November he began to wonder the streets of Notting Hill during the middle of the night, unconcerned for his safety. He had to repeat these walks 2-3 times a night. Afraid of sleeping at home, he undertook long bus day trips to snatch a nap.
On 7th January 2014, F underwent had a consultation with Dr Helps and another clinical hypnotherapist. Despite this treatment, he still suffers from nightmares and distress.
This culminated in a serious anxiety attack on 11th January 2014, when he had to be admitted, as a matter of urgency, suffering from acute anxiety attack.
Dr Walsh wrote on 5th February 2014, expressing his concerns about deterioration of F’s general health.. which was ignored by RBKC.
It can be assumed that the unnecessary anxiety and stress caused by his concerns about the disclosure of his HIV+ status exacerbated his heart condition, which lead to a major Open Heart Surgery in 2018.