When F received copies of the documents sent to the LGO, he found, to his utter astonishment, that many of the Care Plan Reviews, not only referred to his HIV+ status, but also disclose details of the condition’s progress, the life saving medication he must take and the inevitable side-effects he suffers as a consequence.
This specific information should have been removed in May 2010, had RBKC complied with F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement.
When F discovered the existence of the NHS Statutory Restrictions and ICO’s Data Sharing Code of Practice, on 17th September 2015 he asked Ms Pook, LGO’s official what action had she taken when these documents were discovered.
It is F’s opinion that the LGO should have perhaps alerted RBKC to this event, or even informed the ICO, as the LGO was in no way entitled to receive this specific information.
In her reply, dated 23rd September 2015 Ms Pook told F that she did not contact the ICO, as NO DISCLOSURE had OCCURRED. .
The question remains: What legal right has the LGO got to receive highly confidential medical information, including details of person’s HIV+ status, without consent, and keep it for undefined period of time in undefined storage locations; most probably permitting access to it by any Tom, Dick, Harry and itinerant bottle washes, without any oversight?
The receipt of such information by others is addressed in Soho HIV Clinic incident in September 2015.