Desired Outcome_1

RBKC were obliged  by paragraph 10-(3)-(a)or(b)  of the DPA 1998, to respond to F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement,   Documentary evidence shows that RBKC replied ONLY to the 1st part of the Amendment, requiring F’s  explicit consent when a disclosure of his personal information was contemplated.   F’s Confidentiality Table was amended accordingly.

However, RBKC chose NOT  to reply to the 2nd part of the Amendment, which required deletion of  F’s HIV  relevant information from all files.  As it transpired later,  NO action was taken  to remove the information.   As a consequence, this was still available  in August/September 2011, when RBKC prepared their response to the LGO.  For unknown reasons,  copies of F’s OLD, unverified and UNSIGNED Care Plan Reviews, dating back  to 2000, were  included with the ASAQ in the reply.

The  existence  of the original, incomplete, unverified and UNSIGNED  “Assisted Self-Assessment Questionnaire”, ASAQ,  ONLY came to light FOR THE FIRST TIME, on 11th February 2012, 16 MONTHS after F’s  alleged Assessment  in October 2010, for his domestic cleaner; when it was sent by. RBKC to  him,   as a part of his requested for copies  sent to the LGO,.

.It must be noted that  until this date, F assumed  that the  FACE  Report sent  to him by Mr Williams in December 2010, was  a copy of the assessment document.  There were no reasons to assume otherwise, as F had NEVER seen the ORIGINAL ASAQ  before this date.

Therefore, F’s complaint to the LGO about RBKC’s non-compliance with DHSC  assessment guidelines, was based on a WRONG, also unverified and UNSIGNED  report,  prepared from the ASAQ.. 

Interestingly, the FACE Report has a space to state F’s medical diagnosis.  This was left EMPTY by the compiler of this Report. 

F brought the fact of the UNSIGNED ASAQ to Mr Leak’s attention.  His response  would suggest that he was aware of this practice.  .

Subsequently, RBKC ignored the provisions of the  Guidelines for  Assessment for  Adult Social Care;  Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;  Common Law Confidentiality;  ICO’s Data Sharing Code of Practice;  Confidentiality – NHS Code of Practice;  DH’s  DPA 1998 – Guidance to Social Services;  Para 29-(7) of the Local Government Act 1974; Statutory Restrictions on data handling;  Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

There is also the matter of RBKC claiming that a “formal request” for F’s HIV information existed, yet RBKC could NOT provide a copy of this critical document, which compelled  F’s Social Worker to disregard his professional legal obligation to F and allow access to his information.   By this claim RBKC prevented/perverted  the proper progress of HCPC’s investigation into F’s complaint against his Social Worker, for permitting access to his CONFIDENTIAL information.

Perhaps much more, of which we are unaware and hope that this Trial will provide more information.

F’s concerns discussed on this Blog  relate to:

1. Handling of F’s Assessment for Adult Social Care.
2. The collection, handling and disclosure of his HIV+ relevant information.

1.In respect of F’s assessment:

Had RBKC considered, as it perhaps should have done,  to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, the outcome of DWP’s extensive DLA assessment in October 2008, this Blog would not exist.

The DLA 37-page assessment document asked very much the same questions, but in much greater detail than the RBKC’s Assessment document, the ASAQ.  The RBKC should have just renewed their contribution  and that would have been the end of the matter.   Instead, the alleged ‘assessment’ was carried out by unqualified Social Worker, resulting in the mess, detailed on the pages of this Blog.  

F would have never had the need to complain about the incomplete assessment, and the eventual disclosure of his HIV+ relevant information without his consent or knowledge.   This event causing F much concern and distress, culminating in an emergency hospital admission in January 2014, when F suffered from acute anxiety attack and perhaps one of his small TIAs.

 The only evidence of the ‘alleged’  assessment carried on in October 2010, is the incomplete, unverified and unsigned assessment document, ASAQ,  as discussed on the assessment page, which is nothing but a clumsy FORGERY, completed by whomever, wherever and whenever, scoring the answers to arrive at a ‘LOW’ decision, which was very much at odds with the DWP’s DLA assessment, which reiterated the original 2000 assessment.

F was Not involved in the completion of the ASAQ;  he saw it for the VERY FIRST TIME, 16 MONTHS AFTER the ‘alleged’ assessment, when, simply by chance, he asked for copies of all the documents sent by RBKC to the LGO in response to his ‘request for documents’.  Had he not asked for these, he would have NEVER discovered the worthless FORGERY.

RBKC is UNABLE to provide credible evidence that F was involved in any way in the conduct of his assessment and completion of the ASAQ.

Proposed settlement: We think that F should be paid, unconditionally  and without  any accounting process or caveats, RBKC’s contributions in force at the time of the alleged assessment, from  JANUARY 2011 until TODAY.

2.In respect of F’s HIV+ information:

Although  RBKC told F that they had complied with guidelines relating to handling of his Confidential information, some containing details of his HIV+ condition, there is NO evidence that they have actually complied with ICO’s ‘Data Handling Code of Practice’ and Paragraph 10 of the Data Protection Act;  Department of Health’s ‘Data Protection Act 1998 – Guidance to Social Services‘ and ‘Confidentiality – NHS Code of Practice’; and the the  role of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act  in the matter.  Discussed in detail on the Disclosure page.

 The existence of the St John’s  Hospice letter dated 25th April 2000, confirms that RBKC did not take any action in response to F’s May 2010 Amendment and deleted this document from F’s file. 

We may, perhaps finally, get a credible clarification of the NHS(Venereal Regulations)1974;  which is surrounded by much confusion.  We may learn who is responsible to receive any breaches,  what evidence is needed, the format of the complaint, the time limit for submission and the possible retribution to be meted out.

It was thought  that F was perhaps far too protective of his information. This  notion evaporated on 1st September 2015, when  the mere ‘accidental’  disclosure of Soho HIV Clinic’s clients’ email addresses, caused so much public and media frenzy.   F realised that a disclosure of such information is indeed a very serious matter.

RBKC told  F’s  Social Worker Regulators, the HCPC, on 25th July 2013, that should a ‘formal request’ for information be to hand, the Social Worker would be impotent from preventing access to F’s Confidential file and extract whatever information.

However,  when asked, RBKC were unable to provide a copy of this document.  Suggesting that  RBKC fabricated the notion of this document’s existence, to pervert  proper investigation by HCPC into F’s complaint about his Social Worker’s role in the disclosure of his HIV+ information without consent or legal requirement to do so. 

As HCPC chose NOT to ask for a copy of this important document, it can be alleged that HCPC  were aware of its nonexistence.  It colluded with RBKC to fabricate this notion, simply to obfuscate the matter.   It is assumed that this action may be of a criminal nature and should be considered as such.

 Proposed settlement: 

1. There is no credible, legally sound evidence that F completed, verified and signed as being true,  the original Assisted Self Assessment Questionnaire,  ASAQ,  allegedly used by Mr Williams,  in the conduct of his October 2010 re-assessment.  It might have been completed by whomever, whenever and wherever, to arrive at a predetermined score, to enable RBKC to discontinue  their weekly contribution of £ 40 towards the cost of a domestic help. F did not discover a copy of this document. for the first time,  until 11th FEBRUARY 2012.  RBKC endlessly asked F for MEDICAL information, should he wish a new assessment to be carried out.  RBKC were NOT entitled to ask for any MEDICAL information.  Therefore, RBKC’s contributions should be re-instated  from the date they were stopped  in January 2011, to current date.   It should be paid as not requiring any accounting for it, in a lump sum.
2. F should be paid a SUBSTANTIAL COMPENSATION for breach of CONFIDENTIALITY,  STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON DATA HANDLING, PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE DPA, ARTICLE 8 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT and other relevant REGULATIONS, CODES OF PRACTICE AND GUIDELINES, RBKC is obliged to follow as a provider of Social Care and the Controller or Fs CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.  In the process causing F substantial distress, anxiety and damage to his general health, wellbeing, quality of life, as described on the Deterioration of Health page.

Consideration should also be made of the fact that  there is no evidence that neither of these events have occurred in the past.  They are unique, especially in respect of the disclosure of F’s HIV related information.  This is not to say, that disclosure did not occur.   The perpetrators  had enough sense and decency to ameliorate the consequences by attending to it without any undue delay,  illustrated  as recently as 2015 in the Soho HIV Clinic case. 

In this case, the ICO imposed a MPN of £ 180,000 on the Clinic,  in compliance with  section 55A.  For non-compliance with  the 7th  data protection principle, as provided for in Part I of Schedule 1 of the DPA and paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 of the DPA.  The ICO was  also concerned  about the mere inference  that the recipients of the Newsletter may be HIV+, thus having  suffered unwarranted distress, anxiety and concern over this reckless  behaviour by the Clinic.

However, there is a fundamental difference between  the Finish cases, the Soho Clinic event  and F’s case.  The clinics in the Finland cases, as well as the Soho Clinic were entitled to have the HIV relevant information about the individuals, as it was providing HIV relevant  service, in the form of a medical treatment of the condition.  Whereas, RBKC was not even entitled to have  details of F’s HIV+ status, as they DO NOT provide service, where it is imperative for this to be known to them.

Perhaps,  the I v Finland in 2008 and Z v Finland  in 1997, were  similar cases,  in respect of breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.  However in both, those in possession of the individuals’ HIV related information were entitled to have it, as they provided HIV-relevant treatment.  Whereas RBKC were not even entitled to collect such information, let alone record  it, without F’s consent and  eventually disclose it without consent and any legal requirement to do so.

You may post your comments here, having responsibility for them, or send  them to RBKCandHIV@gmail.com