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 2010. RBKC 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.
It was these, NOT asked for by the LGO, Care 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.