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.