at “c) if a formal request was made by the legal team for information contained in a Service User’s file, it would be the Service Manager within the team, who would have authorised the sharing of information with the legal department, not Mr Leak.”
at “d) Mr Leak was not in a position to obstruct the legal team from obtaining information from your files.”
Before considering the “”formal request“, let’s consider Mr Leak’s professional as well as legal obligations to F: Mr Leak was obliged, by the terms of his licence, to keep F’s “information SAFE and CONFIDENTIAL at all times.”
These obligations are clearly defined in HCPC’s “Guidance on Confidentiality”, where the “responsibilities” and “the law and consent” are clearly addresses. It would appear that HCPC chose to ignore their own Guidelines to obfuscate F’s concerns.
Sceptical about the RBKC’s statement about a “formal request” and “access to his file“, on 10th September 2013, F sent an FOI Request to many local authorities,
In their replies, NONE endorsed the statement made by RBKC.
The HCPC requested information from the ICO, LGO and RBKC, who are NOT registered with the HCPC and therefore NOT obliged to follow any of the HCPC’s guidelines.
There is NO evidence that Mr Leak was ever contacted to provide his version of events, as he should have been, as he ALONE is the REGISTRANT, obliged to follow HCPC’s guidelines, he himself responsible for his actions.
Furthermore, there is NO evidence that RBKC or Mr Leak were ever asked for a copy of the “formal request”, which had such a powerful legal force, to compel Mr Leak to forget his responsibilities and permit a wholesale cull, by whomever, of 146 confidential documents from F’s file, in Mr Leak’s custody and under his responsibility.
In respect of contacting the LGO, the request should ONLY be for a copy of the “formal request”. We will never know, as HCPC refused to provide copies of correspondence between HCPC and the LGO, addressed below.
F requested RBKC to let him have a copy of this crucial document. To this date, RBKC have been unable to provide it.
This topic is discussed in detail on the HCPC page.
Later in the year, F wanted to know what information the HCPC sought as evidence from those who were involved in the matter.
On 10th October 2013, F sent a Request to HCPC, asking them for copies of all correspondence exchanged between HCPC and the LGO, RBKC, Mr Leak. He also asked for HCPC’s definition of “Misconduct” and “Lack of Competence“, which feature in the HCPC’s “Guidance on Confidentiality“, as reasons for further action.
HCPC replied on 5th November 2013.
HCPC’s Claire Gascoigne told F that” disclosure of any information would prejudice HCPC’s conduct its fitness to practise process” However, as early as 23 July 2013, Mr Kebir told F that the case will remain closed. Therefore, there was no process of anything underway.
She goes waffling on about what has NOTHING to do with the complaint and the request for copies of documents. Obviously, wholeheartedly hoping to baffle F’s brains with what was nothing but “bullshit”, hoping that he will swallow it all, hook, line and sinker and shut up.
Her ranting had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of CONFIDENTIAL OR CONTROVERSION nature, to do with F’s request, unless HCPC had something to hide; uneasy with disclosing this to F.
In fact, the ONLY document/information, HCPC should have asked all of those cited above, was to provide a copy of this powerful “formal request”, which compelled Mr Leak to toss aside his professional and legal responsibilities to F.
It can be assumed that HPC failed to ask anyone for a copy of this important documents; perhaps because they were well aware of its NON-EXISTENCE.
The ONLY document issued, PUBLICLY, by the LGO, is the Request for documents from RBKC, dated 24th August 2011. F will never know of any other correspondence, exchanged in PRIVATE, as HCPC refused to provide it.
However, more seriously, it can be alleged that by the refusal to produce the requested information, HCPC had conspired with RBKC, to absolve Mr Leak of any wrongdoing, thus perverting the course of proper investigation, by making F believe that a “formal request” existed, therefore Mr Leak was at no fault whatsoever. Hoping that F would NOT take the matter any further.
This is addressed in some detail on the “perverting the course of justice” page.