On 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. with the case It seems she gave up.
Whilst waiting for RBKC’s response to his Request for a copy of RBKC’s response to 2nd part of F’s Amendment, due by 10th December, 2019, on 3rd December 2019, Dr Fatima Zohra chimed in, offering a review of F’s concerns. Yet another poorly informed person tried to obfuscate the matter.
Her missive appears at first glance to be confused, despite the fact that she had seen these comprehensive pages and F’s various requests to RBKC. However, at a closer look, it is a clever way to obfuscate the matter and steer it in a different direction.
She cleverly avoided replying to F’s requests for a copy of documentary evidence that RBKC replied, as they were legally obliged to do, to the 2nd part of F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information sharing Agreement. This dealt with instructions for RBKC to delete ALL HIV relevant information from F’s file.
RBKC replied ONLY to the 1st part, relating to the requirement of a explicit consent when RBKC contemplated disclosure of this information.
Events IN 2000 and before 2010, are deftly glossed over. She introduces nothing but flippant, cavalier attitude to the way RBKC handled the response to the LGO, to cover up the unbelievably unprofessional way they managed the reply. It is a clear example that the customary RBKC arrogance and an attempt to fuck the enquirer’s mind, are applied with usual impunity. In other words, as cited on “Victoria Derbyshire’s” programme “business as usual”…
It also confirms that the long standing findings by the Law Commissions, that local authorities have poor understanding of data protection legislation; due to poor training and lack of proper legal advice.
Dr Zohra claims that RBKC treated the response as a “routine” request from the LGO. How on Earth, did Ms Hussein and perhaps others, gained access to F’s CONFIDENTIAL file held by his Social Worker? Paragraph 6.22 of the DH’s guidance clearly states that the organisation MUST have the powers to ORDER such information and HAD ORDERED such information. No such thing has ever happened. In fact, RBKC were asked on many occasions to produce documentary evidence of this ORDER, which permitted unrestricted access to F’s CONFIDENTIAL file, and permit a wholesale cull of his information, which included details about his HIV condition.
Dr Zohra proposes that F’s HIV related information could be treated as a pedestrian PARKING FINE.
She claims that LGA 1972, paragraph 224 applied to F’s data; therefore it could NOT have been removed, as it would compromise the “integrity of the transaction”.
Yet, later she states that RBKC, in order to move forward, could “expunge” the data, if simply absurd. It is meant to demonstrates, and succeeds in doing so, to confuse the issue. “Expunge” from where? She has NO access to all of the backups that RBKC is obliged to make. This process was clearly evident post GRENFELL tragedy. It is not necessary to dwell on backups held by other organisations, and all sorts of individuals, who have become AWARE of F’s HIV condition. This, by the way, CANNOT be easily “EXPUNGED”, as suggested.
F promptly replied on the same day, drawing Dr Zohra’ attention to the fact that HIV relevant information is subject to NHS STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS.
Therefore, Dr Zohra’s arguments do not hold water and her “Remedies” are nothing but a way of wriggling out of a serious “breach of Confidentiality”, as para 35(2) is irrelevant.
On 6th December 2919, F replied to Dr Zohra, before the DHSC response was to hand.
.It is of critical importance of what happened in 2000, when RBKC overtly asked for F’s medical information on THREE separate occasions; on two occasions, from the same source, St Mary’s hospital. .
This was in contravention of Department of Health rule that “local authorities are NOT entitled to ask for, or routinely receive individual’s confidential medical records, including person’s details of his HIV status.”
Two of those asked, provided RBKC with details of F’s HIV condition, in breach of NHS Statutory Restrictions on data handling, the NHS(Venereal Regulations)1974, which are crystal clear as to who may be given the highly confidential and sensitive information about person’s HIV status.
As RBKC were NOT entitled to receive F’s HIV related information, were RBKC legally entitled to record this highly sensitive information and eventually make it available to UNKNOWN number of individuals. Likewise, it is UNKNOWN how many people have become AWARE of F’s HIV+ status.
Dr Zohra MUST realise that unauthorised handling of F’s highly sensitive, confidential medical information relating to his HIV+ status is at the heart of this saga.