15th August 2019: ICO prepared to re-consider F’s concerns about the disclosure, in light of the new 2018 DPA/DGPR.
9th August 2019: Ms Tasnim Shawkat, WCC’s “Director of Law” (another unregulated fancy job title, without any clout) decided that she could not let F know what she would like to discuss. She withdrew her assistance, leaving her “legal team” to cope. It seems she has given up…
To proceed further and get the stuff moving, we have decided that we should go way back to the beginning of this saga, May 2010. To satisfy ICO’s advice, we have decided to start the process completely anew, taking into consideration DPA and DGPR 2018 . The process is taken up on the Re-presentation page-2019.
2nd May 2019: Unexpectedly, RBKC’s Ms Cheng, who is the Reablement Team Manager, attempting to clarify the difference between reablement and the entitlement to six-week domestic help, relevant to the Post Operation Assistance.
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. This was in effect a Notice, issued in line with paragraph 10 of the 1998 DPA. ICO’s guidelines on handling of paragraph 10 matters, confirm this assumption.
Although F requested RBKC to confirm his instructions, RBKC were legally obliged to reply within 21 days. F should have been told that RBKC will comply with his Amendment, in its entirety, or told why RBKC could NOT comply, clearly stating the legal reasons for this decision.
THE RESPONSE TO F’s Amendment, or the RESPONSE, as required by paragraph 10, NEVER CAME.
Had RBKC responded in a positive way, accepting all the instructions and carried them out, this Blog would not exists, as there would NOT have been any information in August/September 2011 to disclose – it would have been removed.
Had RBKC responded in an unacceptable way, F would have taken the appropriate action to ensure the removal of his HIV relevant data, which RBKC should not have had in the first place, as they DO NOT provide any services which DIRECTLY affect the HIV virus. All of the services provided by local authorities are exactly the same if the service user was HIV+, or NOT.
It is ONLY the service users’ HIV specialist who provides specialist medication, NOT available from a High Street chemists, which DIRECTLY affects the progress of the condition. This is an exclusive service. ALL OTHER SERVICES, including those provided by GPs, are DEEMED TO BE NON-HIV SPECIFIC. This includes any and all services provided by local authorities.
In late November 2019: F discovered that the criteria for the provision of the one-off post operative temporary domestic care, should NOT be decided on whether he was receiving PERSONAL care. He wrote to RBKC on the matter.
24th March 2019: Although the Department of Health statement that “local authorities are not entitled to ask for information..”, F wants to find out if there is a legal basis to this statement. In this context he asked the DHSC on 24th March 2019 about this. Although reminded that their reply is late, as of 29th April 2019, they are yet to reply.
15th March 2019: One important element has not yet been clarified: As there was NO “formal request” for F’s information, compelling his Social Worker to afford access to his files, how was this information removed from F’s files?
What is the legal status of this imaginary, non-existent “formal request”? We assume that this was part of “notion to prevent proper investigation“.
F asked the ICO for clarification as to who should be made aware of this breach.
On 23rd January 2019, Ms Tasnim Shawkat unconditionally told F “that If you have a specific request then please let me know and I can pass your request on to the relevant person in the Council.” It is now clear that if she passed F’s request for copies dated 30th January 2019, which was copied to those responsible at RBKC, it was blatantly ignored. It perhaps would be a proper way to submit his request in accordance with paragraph 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018, to get it off the ground and require RBKC to respond.
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”.