Care and Support Plan Review

First of all, let’s establish what service(s) F receives from RBKC:

Since his discharge from hospital in  June 2000, he was  provided with the services of a “domestic carer/cleaner”,  as explained on early events page.

He was provided with these service because of his physical/sensory impairment and NOT because he is HIV+.   The same service would be provided to other service users, irrespective of their HIV status.

Ms Daintith’s tries to give the impression in her letter to F dated 2nd March 2012 that “As you are not receiving a service from us at present, that F was ONLY receiving  the  services of a “domestic carer”.  This is an  a wrong assumption, which Ms Daintith dreamt up, to suit the situation. 

In fact,  F is also in receipt of other “services”, among them assured  tenancy on his accommodation and the maintenance of it.   He also receives Housing and Council Tax Benefit,  Freedom Pass and a Taxi Card.  He can also avail himself of other community services.     FOI Request to RBKC confirmed that these would be considered as “services”.

Social Services are obliged to carry out regular  “Care and Support Plan Reviews” with their service users,   to review their satisfaction, or not,  with the service(s) provided,  as shown on  a Review dated 5th February 2009 – “what are the objectives of the care package.”

These were also carried out by F’s Social Workers between mid-2000 and October 2010.

Although these Reviews provide a space for the service users’ signature, confirming veracity of the information, F was NEVER given the opportunity to do so.  In fact, he was NEVER even given a copy of the Review for his information.   

Therefore, he was NOT at ALL aware what information was actually recorded on these Reviews, which, it is assumed,  resulted from handwritten notes made by the various Social Workers whilst interviewing F about his satisfaction with the “service”.  It MUST be remembered that these interviews are carried out in an atmosphere of CONFIDENTIALITY and therefore requiring to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.

On 14th May 2011 F asked RBKC for copies of all of his assessment and Care Plan Reviews, which he received on 6th June 2011.

   He found that NOT A SINGLE document was reviewed and signed by him, confirming the veracity and correctness of the information.

He found that, had be been given the opportunity to review these Reviews, he would have NEVER agreed for details of his HIV+  diagnosis and details of its progress to be recorded and eventually made available to whomever.

On review, it came to light that information on these Reviews was either incorrect or incomplete.  It appears that  they  reflect the views of various Social Workers, none of whom had qualifications to deal with service users suffering from sensory/physical impairments, to arrive at a credible opinion, rather than F’s view. 

An example of this inventiveness  is Ms Desmond Owusu’s Care Plan Review  when he visited F on 18th March 2010, the same day Ms Baillie told F that henceforth he will be responsible for the entire cost of his care.  There was no explanation or justification for this decision.  All spaces, which should perhaps should relevant amounts, were blank.

As  Mr Owusu’s visit became irrelevant, particularly  when he suggested to F that he could help him with how to manage his money, F told him leave, which he did a few minutes later.  Yet, he was  able to “create” a Review on 26th March 2010.

In respect of signed Reviews, we asked a few local authorities, who confirmed that all service users are given a copy of their Review.  They are either requested to sign and return the Review, with relevant amendments, if any, or inform the local authority to correct the Review.

Anyway, in ALL CASES, the service  users are given a copy for their records.  THIS WAS NOT THE CASE with  F’s Reviews.  It can be assumed that the practice of NOT  giving a copy to the  service users is widespread and indeed very convenient.  It would be naive to assume that  Ms Baillie was NOT aware of this heinous  practice.

Disclosed HIV relevant information

NOTE: Had RBKC complied with F’s May 2010  amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement and what was in fact a NOTICE in line with paragraph 10  of the DPA, this page would not exist, as there would NOT have been any HIV relevant information to disclose, as it  would have all been removed in May 2010RBKC was not even entitled to ask for HIV relevant information, as confirmed by the Department of Health, let alone record it and make it available to any Tom, Dick, Harry and itinerant bottle washer, without consent

On 18th December 2011, the LGO told F that he had received  from RBKC copies of ‘Care Plan Reviews’ dating back to 2000. The LGO confirmed on 12th January 2012 that he did not ask for these Reviews, as they would be irrelevant to his investigation.

As F had already asked for and received on 6th June 2011, copies of his ‘Care Plan Reviews‘, he became concerned about the content of these Reviews.

It was these, NOT asked for by the LGOCare Plan Reviews which contain not only confirmation of F’s HIV+ status, but also details of the conditions progress, as shown on the “worst” example, completed on 5th February 2009.

What is most upsetting and highly irregular, is that this information was given to the LGO as a result of  Ms Parker’s personal whim,  during a lapse of sanity,  rather than any valid legal reason to do so. 

In her justification dated 22nd February 2012, Ms Parker claimed, as discussed on the disclosure of information page,  that the disclosure was in accordance with paragraph 29 of the Local Government Act 1972, claiming that the LGO had the “powers of the High Court” to compel RBKC to disclose F’s HIV related information.

This statement is INCORRECT.  Paragraph 29 of the LGA 1972 deals with a completely different matter.  Ms Parker should have quoted  the 1974 version of the Act.

However, as F’s HIV related information was  disclosed, the handling of this specific data is protected by the NHS Statutory Restriction on data handling.

Anyway, paragraph 29-(7) of the 1974 Act provides an exemption.

Ms Parker states that the LGO “…asked for a copy of all your “assessment documentation” so that she  could properly consider your complaint.”

Yet, she adds that “Copies of your assessments and care plans were therefore provided.”   However, the LGO told F on 12th January 2012, that he would never ask for the care plans, as they would be irrelevant to his investigation.” 

However, RBKC could not provide justification for sending  LGO 17 pages of F domestic carers/cleaner’s   details of HMRC bonus for the online declaration of his income tax return.  This exchange of emails was due to HMRC error in depositing the bonus into the Direct Payment account, rather than F’s personal account.  This matter was eventually resolved.

 Sadly, this confirms  Ms Parker’s confusion, resulting in an unique event in English legal history: the disclosure of person’s HIV status without the person’s CONSENT.

These documents and information on  them, ended up in what is nothing but a ‘PUBLIC DOMAIN’.   Nobody knows how many copies of these documents, but most importantly, the INFORMATION contained on them are floating around not ONLY RBKC, but also the LGO.  When, in fact, all of this information should have been deleted in compliance with F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement, which RBKC chose to ignore in its entirety.

According to the Department  of Health’s statement dated  26th June 2016, “local authorities  are not entitled to ask for, or routinely receive, an individual’s  confidential medical records, including information about a person’s HIV status”, as discussed on the Collection page 

Had F not asked RBKC for copies of the documents sent to the LGO, he would have NEVER discovered  the handwritten, incomplete, inaccurate, unverified and unsigned assessment document, the ASAQ, allegedly used during F’s assessment process.  

Although RBKC were obliged to tell F that his highly confidential personal and medical information had been disclosed without his consent, this did not happen.   F found that 146 confidential documents were sent to the LGO, not even without his knowledge.   

Furthermore, this confirmed that RBKC chose to completely ignore F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement, which is very clear about not only the disclosure, but also the deletion of F’s HIV relevant information, which RBKC were NOT entitled to have in the   first place, as the Department of Health statement.

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Us – by Webform

Some organisations and others use  a relative newcomer to the means of contacting them – the WEBFORM.

When submitting a Freedom of Information Request to a Government department, the submission is governed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Paragraph  8 – 2- (c) states that  sender should have a copy of his FOI, “capable of being used for subsequent reference.”

However,  when the sender uses the WEBFORM of submitting his FOI,  he encounters  a fundamental problem:

When he completes the ‘webform’, and presses the ‘Submit’ button, the message is sent.  However, at that specific time, he is left with NOTHING to prove that he had actually sent anything at all, Unlike the conventional method of an  outgoing email message, a COPY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY  placed in the sender’s  OUTBOX.

Therefore, the sender has NO proof  that he had sent anything at all, should be need to follow up on the message or use a copy of it for whatever purposes.

As the recipient of the message is in NO way obliged to confirm the receipt, the sender has no leg to stand on.

We are of the opinion that sender, whoever he may be, should be able to a legally valid copy of his message, sent to to whomever.

DHSC – Contact Us

The only means member of the public may contact the DHSC is via its ‘webform’.

Although the sender may select the topic of his communication, the webform for this submission is same for all.

Information handling is governed by the Data Protection Act and  any requests for information, FOIs, by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Paragraph  8 – 2- (c) states that  sender should have a copy of his FOI, “capable of being used for subsequent reference.”

When the sender completes the ‘webform’, and presses the ‘Submit’ button, the message is sent to the DHSC.  However, at that specific time, the sender has NOTHING to prove that he had sent anything at all, therefore  the message is at odds with para 8-2(c).

The DHSC is in NO way obliged to confirm the receipt of the message.  It is obliged to comply with telling the sender if the information is held by the authority and if any fee is due to be levied.

The DHSC has installed relatively recently  almost an instant response system,  sending the individual  a copy of his message.