On 19th March 2019, the Information Commissioner, ICO replied to F’s lengthy message relating to disclosure of information, He told F that “Whilst I understand the substantial body of your complaint took place before the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), any request made to further understand this will now be covered by the updated data protection legislation.”
On 9th May 2019, we had a new look at the very first event in this saga: F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement.
On 9th August 2019, F submitted a Request to RBKC for a copy of the “confirmation” requested in the amendment and of RBKC’s response to para 10.
On 14th August 2019, RBKC confirmed receipt of F’s request. An interesting point arose from this message. F was told that he may NOT be given some information. This is curious, as he asked for copies of letter(s) issued in 2010, addressed to him, confirming understanding of his Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement.
15th August 2019: ICO told F that he would prepared to re-consider F’s concerns about the disclosure, in light of the new 2018 DPA/DGPR.
The Information Commissioner, the ICO does NOT keep records of cases beyond a two year period. Therefore, he is unaware of F’s request for advice in 2011, regarding the legality of the disclosure of his HIV+ status.
We have decided, to start from the very beginning, that being May 2010, when F presented his amended Information Sharing Agreement. He received NO reply. RBKC should have realised that his amendment was in fact a NOTICE, in line with paragraph 10 of the DPA 1998. Although obliged to reply, RBKC chose to ignore this undertaking and did nothing at all.
On 16th August 2019, F submitted a request to RBKC to reconsider Ms Parker’s suggestion made in 2014, to delete his information. He suggested that RBKC should come up with a new solution, which should include a good settlement.
On 21st August 2019, F asked the ICO for clarification of DPA’s paragraph 10, in respect of what should happen next, if the data controller, FAILS to reply, as he is legally obliged to do. His response is still awaited.
On 14th January 2019, F advised RBKC, as a matter of courtesy, that this Blog has gone “public“, its content available worldwide, to view and comment on.
Unexpectedly, on 23rd January 2019, F received an unsolicited reply from Ms Tasnim Shawkat, Westminster City Council’s “Manager of Law.” Another, fancy unregulated Job Title, that any Tom, Dick, Harry or an itinerant bottle washer, could be given. Obviously, to bamboozle the unsuspecting “general public” to believe that it has some mythical gravitas. Whereas, it has NONE. Surprised by her mere referral to his complaint to the LGO, on 23rd January 2019, he submitted a clarification.
In her response dated 24th January 2019, Ms Shawkat advised F that she was “unable” to view the Blog. F responded on 30th January 2019, suggesting to Ms Shawkat what she should ask RBKC to do. This gave F the opportunity to reiterate, in an abridged way, RBKC’s failures, rather than refer to the Desired Outcome referred to below.
It was assumed, obviously quite foolishly, that RBKC would take note of F’s reiteration of his request for copies of documents.
As of 9th March 2019, there has not been a peep from RBKC. Perhaps the time has come to again request these documents, this time in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.
Ms Shawkat replied to F on 18th February, 2019, that she had re-read his message and offered to meet F, rather than continue to correspond by email. She assumed, quite rightfully, that her messages would be published here. F replied on the same day, advising Ms Shawkat that he is awaiting response to two questions raised on the Blog and will contact her soon. It should be interesting to find out what she has to discuss with F.
In the meantime, F is submitting to the ICO, a Request for Clarification of a suggestion made by the Ministry of Justice, that the ICO should be asked the origin of the “formal request”.