When F received copies of his never seen before Care Plan Reviews and the October 2010 Assessment, he found that NONE were signed by him.
F asked Mr Leak about the absence of his signature on the ASAQ. He was told that as a Social Worker was present, it was NOT necessary for F to sign it, confirming veracity of his answers.
As F could not find any information, on 29th July 2014, he asked senior Professor in Law about this point.
Professor Chalmer’s reply is interesting. It is clear that RBKC by not asking anyone to sign their documents, expose themselves to criticism and inability to prove that the documents were completed in the individual’s presence.
Mr Leak may have been right, but the caveat here is that, as long as the document remains UNSIGNED, BOTH parties MUST be SATISFIED with the answers. However, as soon as either party disputes them, the documents becomes legally unsafe, as there is NO proof that the service user had seen the document, let alone agreed with its content.
This situation is avoided, by simply NOT giving the service user a copy of the Review. Job done.
He sent a number of FOI Requests to local authorities, regarding the necessity for a signature of the Care Plan Reviews. From the replies received, the one from Waltham Forest on 16th July 2015 is a typical reply. It states that the service users get two copies of their Reviews; they are asked to sign one, confirming veracity of the information.
By NOT asking the service users to sign their Care Plan Reviews, they may contain whatever RBKC feels fit, to justify their agenda and the purpose of the Review.
Had F been given copies of his Care Plan Review, he would have NEVER agreed for his HIV relevant information to be recorded. Provision of a domestic cleaner hardly necessitates for this fact to be known.
Therefore, this specific information would have NEVER been recorded and you would not be reading this Blog.
