In early 2013 F realised that one of the main responsibilities of his Social Worker was to keep F’s ‘information confidential and safe at all times’.
On 19th February 2013, F submitted a complaint to HCPC, the newly established Social Workers Regulators.
On 25th July 2013, F was told by HCPC that RBKC confirmed to them that
- Mr Leak, F’s Social Worker,was NOT directly responsible for the disclosure of your information to the legal team.
- RBKC’s legal team have access to ALL documentation they require for their role.
- If a FORMAL REQUEST was made by the legal team for information contained in a Service User’s file, it would be the Service Manager within the team, who would have authorised the sharing of your information with the legal team.
- Mr Leak was NOT in a position to obstruct the legal team from obtaining information from your files.
F found this very worrisome, as it indicated that RBKC could do as they felt fit with his information, despite his explicit instructions in May 2010 relating to consent.
Without asking for a copy of the ‘formal request’, he asked many local authorities in England, how would they approach the matter.
On 10th September 2013, F sent an FOI to many local authorities, asking them how they would treat the matter.
Those who replied, stated failed to endorse RBKC’s reasoning.
However, what should have happened or not, becomes rather academic, because, RBKC could NOT provide a copy of the ‘formal request’.
On 16th February 2016, RBKC was asked for a copy of the ‘order’ which would have to be issued by the LGO, ordering RBKC to disclose F’s HIV relevant information. The LGO merely issued a polite REQUEST for copies of F’s assessment documents and relevant information.
RBKC replied on 2nd March 2016, telling F that RBKC does NOT have a copy of this important document.
This fact now presents a very important question: how come that Mr Leak permitted access to F’s confidential file, when there was NO compelling legal reason to do so.
It must be remembered that Social Workers are independent legal entities, with their own professional legal obligations, imposed by their LICENCE to work as Social Workers, issued by the HCPC.
Had Mr Leak not been Ms Baillie’s meek, sycophantic lap dog, wagging his tail to her whistles, he was entitled to tell them all to go away and return with a proper legal document, a Court Order, in the case of F’s information, compelling his to disclose F’s HIV information.
There is NO evidence that the LGO was aware of any of F’s medical conditions, as they were not collected by the ASAQ, or mentioned on the FACE Report, where the medical information space is BLANK. This would confirm that F’s medical conditions, let alone HIV, were relevant to the assessment process; otherwise they would have been provided.
It can be alleged that RBKC invented the notion of the existence of a ‘formal request‘, thus perverting the course of HCPC’s investigation.
However, what is very strange and gives rise to collusion, is the fact that HCPC failed to ask RBKC for this crucial document, which would have put the investigation in a different light. Mr Leak DID NOT have a reason to permit access to F’s HIV information.
HCPC told F about the ‘formal request’ in wholehearted believe that he would accept this narrative, shut up and go away.
