Ms Jean Daintith, RBKC Executive Director for Housing, Health and Adult Social Care told F on 18th May 2011, that ‘All our procedures and policies are in line with the Department of Health guidelines and there is no evidence to suggest that our service users are put at any risk as a result of them.’
There is NO credible evidence that RBKC complied with any of them
Although required to comply with them, they ignore the Department of Health’s ‘Prioritising need in the context of Putting People First: A whole system approach to eligibility for social care – Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Social Care – 2010‘ .
In accordance with the above Guidelines, F should have been given the opportunity to challenge the decision. RBKC denied this, by stating that because he was given a flimsy flyer , there was no requirement for this offer to have been made to F.
However, the complaint process he was allegedly made aware of, changed in 2009, by the introduction of the ‘Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints(England)Regulations 2009‘, which streamlined the complaints process. This should have been complied with, irrespective whether F was aware of anything or nothing.
In respect of the eventual needless unauthorised disclosure of F HIV+ status and relevant clinical information, without any legal requirement to do so, RBKC failed to comply with:
Department of Health ‘Data Protection Act 1998 – Guidance to Social Services‘
Department of Health ‘Confidentiality – NHS Code of Practice‘