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 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.
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.