Housing management job descriptions, pay scales and confidentiality policies

Alea made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Camden Borough Council

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear Camden Borough Council,

The term 'Housing Manager' is what tenants of Camden council are familiar with in regard to those employed within the housing department to manage a set area of properties.

This request relates to these employees and the 2 levels of management above regardless of how the job titles have been rebranded more recently.

(1) Please provide the advertised job descriptions and pay scales for ' housing managers' ( whatever they are now branded as ), those directly employed to manage them and those at the next grade up.

(2) 're confidentiality please provide ALL guidance issued to all 3 grades regarding both the council's own data protection policies AND regarding handling of confidential personal sensitive data of the council's own tenants. The timeframe requested is from Jan 2015 to today.

(3) Housing management are not health or social care professionals . Presumably therefore they do not have ANY access to Mosaic ,the social care database, nor it's predecessor electronic databases.

Presumably they also would not be routinely sitting in case conferences or accessing personal sensitive data on a ' need to know ' basis unless legal exception applies as laid down by statute. Please note this does NOT apply to information gained through housing applications or rehousing.

Please confirm this is accurate information .

(4) If it is not accurate then please list egs of exceptions to 'the need to know' legal basis. Presumably there is guidance linked with statute.

(5) Please state on what basis it would be considered acceptable to share personal sensitive data of Camden tenants with commercial lettings agencies. Again, where there is NO link to housing applications or rehousing.

Yours faithfully,

Alea Alea ( name changed by deed poll and commonly known by as Camden already aware)

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

Dear Alea Alea

Your case reference is CAM282

Thank you for your enquiry. It is being looked at, we will be in touch
with you soon.

Yours sincerely

Camden Council

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

Dear Requester,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS
2004 – request for information. Ref: CAM282

Thank you for your request dated 24-07-2020. We are dealing with it under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004.

You will receive a response by 24-08-2020 which is 20 working days (from
the day after the request is received) as defined by the Act and
Regulations.

Please check your spam folder in case our response may arrive there.

If we need to ask you to clarify your request we will contact you. If we
do ask for clarification and you don’t provide it your request will lapse,
so please read carefully any correspondence we send you about your
request.

We will provide information electronically where possible. If you need an
alternative format e.g. large print etc. please let me know.

There may be a fee payable for this information. We will let you know if
this is the case and explain how to pay it and what your options are.

If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me at
[email address].

We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided to
be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a
breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and
Electronic Communication Regulations.

Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner’s
Office at [1]www.ico.org.uk, telephone 0303 123 1113, Email:
[2][email address].

Yours sincerely,

Tanya Bryant

Information Rights Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

2 Atodiad

London Borough of Camden
Information and Records Management
Judd Street
London.
WC1H 9JE
e-mail: [Camden Borough Council request email]

Dear Requester

Thank you for your recent request.  Your response is attached.

We publish our responses on our Open Data Portal, you will be able to see
your response and others back to August 2017 [1]here, although there is a
small lag before publication.

Thank you for your interest in Camden council

Yours sincerely,

Peter Williams
Information Rights Officer

References

Visible links
1. https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/Your-Coun...

Williams, Peter, Camden Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Requester

 

Ref: CAM282

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

I am very sorry but our response to your request was wrong in response to
question 3.  The first part of our response (with the amended sentence in
italics) should have read:

“Neighbourhood housing team access to Mosaic: Neighbourhood housing team
staff have never had access to children’s social work records on MOSAIC or
Framework I (the previous database). During the landlord services review,
which concluded in 2019, a small number of staff working in a Kentish Town
pilot area were given limited access to Adult Social Care records. The
team were testing the premise that NHOs could develop a role as a single
trusted point of contact for residents in their area, responding
holistically to residents needs if they lived in the council’s stock.
Those staff no longer have access to MOSAIC.”

I have attached an amended response and we are very sorry for any
confusion or inconvenience this may have caused.

Yours sincerely

 

 

Peter Williams  
Information Rights Officer
Law and Governance
Corporate Services
London Borough of Camden

Telephone:    020 7974 7857
Web:              [1]camden.gov.uk

5th Floor
5 Pancras Square
London N1C 4AG

The majority of Council staff are now working at home through remote,
secure access to our systems.

Where possible please now communicate with us by telephone or email. We
have limited staff in our offices to deal with post, but as most staff are
homeworking due to the current situation with COVID-19, electronic
communications will mean we can respond quickly.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, legally
privileged and/or copyright protected. This e-mail is intended for the
addressee only. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender
and delete the material from your computer. See our new Privacy Notice
[2]here which tells you how we store and process the data we hold about
you and residents.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.camden.gov.uk/
2. http://www.camden.gov.uk/privacystatement

Dear Peter Williams ,

I request an internal review of both responses .

The council's response is not considered compliant with statutory guidance of tbe ICO . It is not considered that Camden Council has been transparent or duly open or accurate to the required degree in it's response or amended response.

I am requesting very specific information.

You have, for reasons speculated on for now, issued an amended response. To an initial response that was inaccurate and presents or could be interpreted to be wholly misleading.

You have stated:

'During the landlord services review,
which concluded in 2019, a small number of staff working in a Kentish Town
pilot area were given limited access to Adult Social Care records. The
team were testing the premise that NHOs could develop a role as a single
trusted point of contact for residents in their area, responding
holistically to residents needs if they lived in the council’s stock.
Those staff no longer have access to MOSAIC.”

Please provide the protocol, the guidance and the evaluations of this pilot as it is extremely vague as to what you are talking about. Neither I, nor anyone checked with, understand how and where such a premise could be legally viable and in what context this wpuld apply.

Presumably this was put to committe and relevant councillors for approval given it is a serious deviation from role AND using non professionals AND at a time where access to ASC had been already criminally compromised. I presume Mary McGowan as Director of Housing knew about this 'premise' and 'pilot'.

Maybe this would be better responded to in a separate FOI? Unless of course you wish to reframe that response as well with the detail legally required.

You stated previously that housing officers or management had no access to the previous Adult Social Care records system framework- i.

You are asked to formally reconsider that response.

I am asking if ,under any circumstances, housing management at any level have EVER had direct access to ANY adult social care database. I am sorry if my request wasn't clear enough on this matter. I hope that clarifies.

That includes framework-i and it includes Mosaic. Whether as a named individual or as a housing management officer allocated an access code.

With regard to your amended response state the exact number of staff in the Kentish Town area that had access in the way you describe during the pilot based on premise as it will now be referred to. Including their job title, the start and end period they were given access for and what is meant by ' the Kentish Town area'.

Your response raises, as you seem to be aware, very serious concerns. So please try and clear up by answering this:

Since 2013 has there been auditing of both ASC electronic records system referred to whereby housing access has been established and those actions, names or identifiers of said housing staff been removed so that any audit requested by a councillor or by a tenant or by police would present as not happening or be permanently erased?

It is a simple question. I am asking if Camden knew housing staff had been accessing Adult Social Records and have decided, for whatever reason, to delete or try and delete trace of this.

Please treat as a separate FOI if necessary . However a straight yes or no would suffice if you are legally certain of your response.

With regard to ANY housing staff accessing ANY adult social care records Camden have still not explained how that is compatible with the law or Camden Council policy.

Amongst other things, Data Protection statute requires that access to personal sensitive data is only ever on a need to know basis.
As stated housing officers are NOT health or social care professionals and do not have a statutory function in this role.

Every single person has the legal right to refuse to share data and the statutes across the board are clear that there are very few exceptions to this once an individual has stated this. Camden are required to obtain explicit consent to data share where it wpuld be ambiguous not to.

Camden council is reqired by law to ensure refusal to data share is recorded clearly on records.
Where is this recorded on current and previous Adult Social Care records?
How does the council meet this statutory responsibility?

I am confused by the response how a tenant sharing or discussing formally or informally with housing staff would EVER be compliant with the requirements of implicit or explicit consent for simultaneously accessing adult social care records for ANY reason whatsoever.

As I am not a data governance expert and this is a FOI request so as you are please refer to which specific paragraphs of primary statute allow such a breach, whether it be DPA statute or reliance on common law. I make the presumption that your department is responsible for drawing up guidance to staff re confidentiality that includes reference to common law drawing from your legal services team where needed.

To help you respond this is where my confusion lies:

If there is considered to be an emergency life or limb situation where the doctrine of common law wpuld apply then presumably housing staff are required to follow council policy. So, for eg if they genuinely believed life was at risk they should call the police as per policy?

Please confirm this is the protocol council staff ate instructed to follow .

If they thought the above applied they may also consider calling London Ambulance service although that would be outside council policy?

If they thought there was a serious safeguarding concern they would make a referral to adult social care NOT access an individual's records . Safeguarding protocol also includes calling police if immediate danger to life and limb.

In what scenario would it EVER be appropriate for housing staff to access an individual tenant's records which could contain medical information, full mental health records if a Camden social worker employed in the mental health trust had ever made an entry, hospital records, records of other safeguarding concerns and investigation, if they or anyone vulnerable in their home had been a rape or abuse victim, personal sensitive data of other family members living or not living in the household, OT assessments, financial details including bank account details, key safe codes and care plans.

The list is almost endless. Which is wy such records are afforded legal protection in a manner totally at odds with the pilot based on premise described by you.

Why, including in any 'pilot' would ANY housing staff have a legal need or right to access such a level of personal sensitive data?

Please provide copies of consent forms housing staff used to do so . Treat as a seperate FOI if necessary although presumably this is one click away on both the IG and Housing Directorate file servers as those staff you have admitted did so would have needed to access easily to present to clients for such exceptional agreement.

This would have been a very obvious requirement of data protection requirements plus, given Camden Council history of staff accessing and selling on sensitive data from the ASC dataases ( and being criminally convicted of doing so) a required level governance and due diligence.

The responses are disturbing so I will presume for now that you understand why this is a public concern and that you can explain in easier to understand detail the anomolies I have highlighted.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Williams, Peter, Camden Borough Council

4 Atodiad

Date: 21/09/20

Ref:   CAM282

 

Dear Requester

Freedom of Information Act 2000/Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Thank you for your request for an Internal Review of the response to your
recent Freedom of Information Act/Environmental Information request.  The
Borough Solicitor will consider your Internal Review and you will receive
a response within the next 20 working days unless the matter is
particularly complex in which case we will take up to 40 working days.  We
will let you know if that is the case.

As you have raised a number of additional questions we will also log your
email as a new request.  This is so that we can give you a more
comprehensive  response and address all the issues raised.

Yours sincerely

 

--
Peter Williams
Information Rights Officer

Telephone: 020 7974 7857

[1][IMG] [2][IMG] [3][IMG] [4][IMG] 

The majority of Council staff are now working at home through remote,
secure access to our systems.

Where possible please now communicate with us by telephone or email. We
have limited staff in our offices to deal with post, but as most staff are
homeworking due to the current situation with COVID-19, electronic
communications will mean we can respond quickly.

From: Alea <[FOI #679432 email]>
Sent: 19 September 2020 14:51
To: Williams, Peter <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Housing
management job descriptions, pay scales and confidentiality policies

 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Beware – This email originated outside Camden Council and
may be malicious Please take extra care with any links, attachments,
requests to take action or for you to verify your password etc. Please
note there have been reports of emails purporting to be about Covid 19
being used as cover for scams so extra vigilance is required.

Dear Peter Williams ,

I request an internal review of both responses .

The council's response is not considered compliant with statutory guidance
of tbe ICO . It is not considered that Camden Council has been transparent
or duly open or accurate to the required degree in it's response or
amended response.

I am requesting very specific information.

You have, for reasons speculated on for now, issued an amended response.
To an initial response that was inaccurate and presents or could be
interpreted to be wholly misleading.

You have stated:

'During the landlord services review,

which concluded in 2019, a small number of staff working in a Kentish Town

pilot area were given limited access to Adult Social Care records. The

team were testing the premise that NHOs could develop a role as a single

trusted point of contact for residents in their area, responding

holistically to residents needs if they lived in the council’s stock.

Those staff no longer have access to MOSAIC.”

Please provide the protocol, the guidance and the evaluations of this
pilot as it is extremely vague as to what you are talking about. Neither
I, nor anyone checked with, understand how and where such a premise could
be legally viable and in what context this wpuld apply.

Presumably this was put to committe and relevant councillors for approval
given it is a serious deviation from role AND using non professionals AND
at a time where access to ASC had been already criminally compromised. I
presume Mary McGowan as Director of Housing knew about this 'premise' and
'pilot'.

Maybe this would be better responded to in a separate FOI? Unless of
course you wish to reframe that response as well with the detail legally
required.

You stated previously that housing officers or management had no access to
the previous Adult Social Care records system framework- i.

You are asked to formally reconsider that response.

I am asking if ,under any circumstances, housing management at any level
have EVER had direct access to ANY adult social care database. I am sorry
if my request wasn't clear enough on this matter. I hope that clarifies.

That includes framework-i and it includes Mosaic. Whether as a named
individual or as a housing management officer allocated an access code.

With regard to your amended response state the exact number of staff in
the Kentish Town area that had access in the way you describe during the
pilot based on premise as it will now be referred to. Including their job
title, the start and end period they were given access for and what is
meant by ' the Kentish Town area'.

Your response raises, as you seem to be aware, very serious concerns. So
please try and clear up by answering this:

Since 2013 has there been auditing of both ASC electronic records system
referred to whereby housing access has been established and those actions,
names or identifiers of said housing staff been removed so that any audit
requested by a councillor or by a tenant or by police would present as not
happening or be permanently erased?

It is a simple question. I am asking if Camden knew housing staff had been
accessing Adult Social Records and have decided, for whatever reason, to
delete or try and delete trace of this.

Please treat as a separate FOI if necessary . However a straight yes or no
would suffice if you are legally certain of your response.

With regard to ANY housing staff accessing ANY adult social care records
Camden have still not explained how that is compatible with the law or
Camden Council policy.

Amongst other things, Data Protection statute requires that access to
personal sensitive data is only ever on a need to know basis.

As stated housing officers are NOT health or social care professionals and
do not have a statutory function in this role.

Every single person has the legal right to refuse to share data and the
statutes across the board are clear that there are very few exceptions to
this once an individual has stated this. Camden are required to obtain
explicit consent to data share where it wpuld be ambiguous not to.

Camden council is reqired by law to ensure refusal to data share is
recorded clearly on records.

Where is this recorded on current and previous Adult Social Care records?

How does the council meet this statutory responsibility?

I am confused by the response how a tenant sharing or discussing formally
or informally with housing staff would EVER be compliant with the
requirements of implicit or explicit consent for simultaneously accessing
adult social care records for ANY reason whatsoever.

As I am not a data governance expert and this is a FOI request so as you
are please refer to which specific paragraphs of primary statute allow
such a breach, whether it be DPA statute or reliance on common law. I make
the presumption that your department is responsible for drawing up
guidance to staff re confidentiality that includes reference to common law
drawing from your legal services team where needed.

To help you respond this is where my confusion lies:

If there is considered to be an emergency life or limb situation where the
doctrine of common law wpuld apply then presumably housing staff are
required to follow council policy. So, for eg if they genuinely believed
life was at risk they should call the police as per policy?

Please confirm this is the protocol council staff ate instructed to follow
.

If they thought the above applied they may also consider calling London
Ambulance service although that would be outside council policy?

If they thought there was a serious safeguarding concern they would make a
referral to adult social care NOT access an individual's records .
Safeguarding protocol also includes calling police if immediate danger to
life and limb.

In what scenario would it EVER be appropriate for housing staff to access
an individual tenant's records which could contain medical information,
full mental health records if a Camden social worker employed in the
mental health trust had ever made an entry, hospital records, records of
other safeguarding concerns and investigation, if they or anyone
vulnerable in their home had been a rape or abuse victim, personal
sensitive data of other family members living or not living in the
household, OT assessments, financial details including bank account
details, key safe codes and care plans.

The list is almost endless. Which is wy such records are afforded legal
protection in a manner totally at odds with the pilot based on premise
described by you.

Why, including in any 'pilot' would ANY housing staff have a legal need or
right to access such a level of personal sensitive data?

Please provide copies of consent forms housing staff used to do so . Treat
as a seperate FOI if necessary although presumably this is one click away
on both the IG and Housing Directorate file servers as those staff you
have admitted did so would have needed to access easily to present to
clients for such exceptional agreement.

This would have been a very obvious requirement of data protection
requirements plus, given Camden Council history of staff accessing and
selling on sensitive data from the ASC dataases ( and being criminally
convicted of doing so) a required level governance and due diligence.

The responses are disturbing so I will presume for now that you understand
why this is a public concern and that you can explain in easier to
understand detail the anomolies I have highlighted.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

Dear Alea Alea

Your case reference is CAM507

Thank you for your enquiry. It is being looked at, we will be in touch
with you soon.

Yours sincerely

Camden Council

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

Dear Requester,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS
2004 – request for information. Ref: CAM507

Thank you for your request dated 21-09-2020. We are dealing with it under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004.

You will receive a response by 19-10-2020 which is 20 working days (from
the day after the request is received) as defined by the Act and
Regulations.

Please check your spam folder in case our response may arrive there.

If we need to ask you to clarify your request we will contact you. If we
do ask for clarification and you don’t provide it your request will lapse,
so please read carefully any correspondence we send you about your
request.

We will provide information electronically where possible. If you need an
alternative format e.g. large print etc. please let me know.

There may be a fee payable for this information. We will let you know if
this is the case and explain how to pay it and what your options are.

If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me at
[email address].

We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided to
be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a
breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and
Electronic Communication Regulations.

Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner’s
Office at [1]www.ico.org.uk, telephone 0303 123 1113, Email:
[2][email address].

Yours sincerely,

Peter Williams

Information Rights Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

Dear Requester

Ref: CAM507

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000/ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004
- INFORMATION REQUEST

Thank you for your recent request received on 21 Sep 2020.

We need to ask you to clarify your request so we can deal with it.

We have treated your email below as a new request and been seeking to
provide responses but have found it convoluted and difficult to
understand. 

I have tried to interpret your request and have given it some structure to
make it easier for us to provide clear responses:

A. Housing staff in ‘Kentish Town pilot area’ with limited access to Adult
Social Care records

1. Please provide the protocol, the guidance and the evaluations of this
pilot.

2. Who approved this pilot? Was this put to committee and relevant
councillors?

3. The exact number of staff in the Kentish Town area that had access in
pilot

4. What is meant by ' the Kentish Town area'?

B. Housing management access to Adult Social Care records

5. Did housing management at any level have ever have direct access to any
adult social care database (that includes framework-i and Mosaic)?

6. Was a named individual or housing management officer ever allocated an
access code?

7. Since 2013 has there been auditing of both ASC electronic records
system where housing access has been established?

8. Have those actions, names or identifiers of housing staff been removed
or permanently erased?

9. Why, including in any 'pilot' would ANY housing staff have a legal need
or right to access personal sensitive data?

10. Please provide copies of consent forms housing staff used to do so.

C. Data protection law and Camden Council policy

11. How is housing staff accessing adult social care records with the law
or Camden Council policy?

12. Camden council is required by law to ensure refusal to data share is
recorded clearly on records:

a. Where is this recorded on current and previous Adult Social Care
records?

b. How does the council meet this statutory responsibility?

13. In an emergency presumably housing staff are required to follow
council policy. So, for if they genuinely believed life was at risk they
should call the police?

14. If they thought the above applied they may also consider calling
London Ambulance service although that would be outside council policy?

Please can you confirm that we should answer these questions and/or
provide other clarifications within 3 weeks of today - so by the 03 Nov
2020.

Please click on the link below and enter your clarification. The link is
one use only.
[1]https://www.camden.gov.uk/web/guest?p_p_...

Once you have clarified your request, we will be able to process it.

However if you do not provide the clarification by the date requested your
request will lapse and we will close the case.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely

Peter Williams

Information Rights Officer

 

I request an internal review of both responses .

The council's response is not considered compliant with statutory guidance
of tbe ICO . It is not considered that Camden Council has been transparent
or duly open or accurate to the required degree in it's response or
amended response.

I am requesting very specific information.

You have, for reasons speculated on for now, issued an amended response.
To an initial response that was inaccurate and presents or could be
interpreted to be wholly misleading.

You have stated:

'During the landlord services review,

which concluded in 2019, a small number of staff working in a Kentish Town

pilot area were given limited access to Adult Social Care records. The

team were testing the premise that NHOs could develop a role as a single

trusted point of contact for residents in their area, responding

holistically to residents needs if they lived in the council’s stock.

Those staff no longer have access to MOSAIC.”

Please provide the protocol, the guidance and the evaluations of this
pilot as it is extremely vague as to what you are talking about. Neither
I, nor anyone checked with, understand how and where such a premise could
be legally viable and in what context this wpuld apply.

Presumably this was put to committe and relevant councillors for approval
given it is a serious deviation from role AND using non professionals AND
at a time where access to ASC had been already criminally compromised. I
presume Mary McGowan as Director of Housing knew about this 'premise' and
'pilot'.

Maybe this would be better responded to in a separate FOI? Unless of
course you wish to reframe that response as well with the detail legally
required.

You stated previously that housing officers or management had no access to
the previous Adult Social Care records system framework- i.

You are asked to formally reconsider that response.

I am asking if ,under any circumstances, housing management at any level
have EVER had direct access to ANY adult social care database. I am sorry
if my request wasn't clear enough on this matter. I hope that clarifies.

That includes framework-i and it includes Mosaic. Whether as a named
individual or as a housing management officer allocated an access code.

With regard to your amended response state the exact number of staff in
the Kentish Town area that had access in the way you describe during the
pilot based on premise as it will now be referred to. Including their job
title, the start and end period they were given access for and what is
meant by ' the Kentish Town area'.

Your response raises, as you seem to be aware, very serious concerns. So
please try and clear up by answering this:

Since 2013 has there been auditing of both ASC electronic records system
referred to whereby housing access has been established and those actions,
names or identifiers of said housing staff been removed so that any audit
requested by a councillor or by a tenant or by police would present as not
happening or be permanently erased?

It is a simple question. I am asking if Camden knew housing staff had been
accessing Adult Social Records and have decided, for whatever reason, to
delete or try and delete trace of this.

Please treat as a separate FOI if necessary . However a straight yes or no
would suffice if you are legally certain of your response.

With regard to ANY housing staff accessing ANY adult social care records
Camden have still not explained how that is compatible with the law or
Camden Council policy.

Amongst other things, Data Protection statute requires that access to
personal sensitive data is only ever on a need to know basis.

As stated housing officers are NOT health or social care professionals and
do not have a statutory function in this role.

Every single person has the legal right to refuse to share data and the
statutes across the board are clear that there are very few exceptions to
this once an individual has stated this. Camden are required to obtain
explicit consent to data share where it wpuld be ambiguous not to.

Camden council is reqired by law to ensure refusal to data share is
recorded clearly on records.

Where is this recorded on current and previous Adult Social Care records?

How does the council meet this statutory responsibility?

I am confused by the response how a tenant sharing or discussing formally
or informally with housing staff would EVER be compliant with the
requirements of implicit or explicit consent for simultaneously accessing
adult social care records for ANY reason whatsoever.

As I am not a data governance expert and this is a FOI request so as you
are please refer to which specific paragraphs of primary statute allow
such a breach, whether it be DPA statute or reliance on common law. I make
the presumption that your department is responsible for drawing up
guidance to staff re confidentiality that includes reference to common law
drawing from your legal services team where needed.

To help you respond this is where my confusion lies:

If there is considered to be an emergency life or limb situation where the
doctrine of common law wpuld apply then presumably housing staff are
required to follow council policy. So, for eg if they genuinely believed
life was at risk they should call the police as per policy?

Please confirm this is the protocol council staff ate instructed to follow
.

If they thought the above applied they may also consider calling London
Ambulance service although that would be outside council policy?

If they thought there was a serious safeguarding concern they would make a
referral to adult social care NOT access an individual's records .
Safeguarding protocol also includes calling police if immediate danger to
life and limb.

In what scenario would it EVER be appropriate for housing staff to access
an individual tenant's records which could contain medical information,
full mental health records if a Camden social worker employed in the
mental health trust had ever made an entry, hospital records, records of
other safeguarding concerns and investigation, if they or anyone
vulnerable in their home had been a rape or abuse victim, personal
sensitive data of other family members living or not living in the
household, OT assessments, financial details including bank account
details, key safe codes and care plans.

The list is almost endless. Which is wy such records are afforded legal
protection in a manner totally at odds with the pilot based on premise
described by you.

Why, including in any 'pilot' would ANY housing staff have a legal need or
right to access such a level of personal sensitive data?

Please provide copies of consent forms housing staff used to do so . Treat
as a seperate FOI if necessary although presumably this is one click away
on both the IG and Housing Directorate file servers as those staff you
have admitted did so would have needed to access easily to present to
clients for such exceptional agreement.

This would have been a very obvious requirement of data protection
requirements plus, given Camden Council history of staff accessing and
selling on sensitive data from the ASC dataases ( and being criminally
convicted of doing so) a required level governance and due diligence.

The responses are disturbing so I will presume for now that you understand
why this is a public concern and that you can explain in easier to
understand detail the anomolies I have highlighted.

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.camden.gov.uk/web/guest?p_p_...

Dear Camden Borough Council,

Firstly this is a pure delaying tactic as the questions are very very clear to all those who checked before submitted.

As a disabled person ( and you know that) I take offence to you stating you dont understand when you havent even stated which questions you dont understand because lets face it, you do and refusing to respond is a legal tactic because you are concerned about litigation.

Rather than just be transparent about your officers actions and the council's policy .
These are very basic questions relating to very clear circumstances.

With regard to your 'deadline' please provide tbe exact patagraph from primary legislation that allows you to set arbitrary deadlines and from the statutory guidance, how long you are required to consider giving someone and what factors are required to be taken in to account.

As a disabled person I assert my legal rights under the Equality Act 2010 that you make reasonable adjustments for disability given apparently I am not able to communicate in line with non disabled requesters and therefore require significantly more time.

The council is reminded yet again that under the Public Sector Equality Duty anticipatory duties you are required by law to consider the communication needs of requesters.

I would also suggest if it is truly that unclear to your team what is being asked then you ask for support on communication pathways from your Equality and Diversity trainers.

So, explain the legal framework by which you are refusing to respond to very straightforward questions AND clarify what YOU as a team dont understand.

Yours faithfully,

Alea

Williams, Peter, Camden Borough Council

4 Atodiad

Date:            20 October 2020

 

Reference:    CAM507

 

 

Dear Requester

Freedom of Information request - Housing management job descriptions, pay
scales and confidentiality policies

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately your request was not sufficiently clear.  We found it
confusing and it would be difficult for us to provide a clear or
meaningful response.  Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we can
write for clarification if we need it.  This in accordance with Section
1(3) of the Act.

To further advise and assist you I tried to set out your request as best I
could.  I asked you to confirm if I had interpreted it correctly and amend
it if necessary.  This serves as a reasonable adjustment and is in
accordance with Section 16 of the Act.

If you could confirm that my interpretation is correct (or add and amend
as necessary) then we will process your request to give you a clear
response that should answer your questions point by point.

Yours faithfully

 

--
Peter Williams
Information Rights Officer

Telephone: 020 7974 7857

    

The majority of Council staff are now working at home through remote,
secure access to our systems.

Where possible please now communicate with us by telephone or email. We
have limited staff in our offices to deal with post, but as most staff are
homeworking due to the current situation with COVID-19, electronic
communications will mean we can respond quickly.

From: Alea <[1][FOI #679432 email]>
Sent: 13 October 2020 11:55
To: FOI <[2][Camden Borough Council request email]>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Housing management job
descriptions, pay scales and confidentiality policies

 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Beware – This email originated outside Camden Council
and may be malicious Please take extra care with any links, attachments,
requests to take action or for you to verify your password etc. Please
note there have been reports of emails purporting to be about Covid 19
being used as cover for scams so extra vigilance is required.

Dear Camden Borough Council,

Firstly this is a pure delaying tactic as the questions are very very
clear to all those who checked before submitted.

As a disabled person ( and you know that) I take offence to you stating
you dont understand when you havent even stated which questions you dont
understand because lets face it, you do and refusing to respond is a legal
tactic because you are concerned about litigation.

Rather than just be transparent about your officers actions and the
council's policy .

These are very basic questions relating to very clear circumstances.

With regard to your 'deadline' please provide tbe exact patagraph from
primary legislation that allows you to set arbitrary deadlines and from
the statutory guidance, how long you are required to consider giving
someone and what factors are required to be taken in to account.

As a disabled person I assert my legal rights under the Equality Act 2010
that you make reasonable adjustments for disability given apparently I am
not able to communicate in line with non disabled requesters and therefore
require significantly more time.

The council is reminded yet again that under the Public Sector Equality
Duty anticipatory duties you are required by law to consider the
communication needs of requesters.

I would also suggest if it is truly that unclear to your team what is
being asked then you ask for support on communication pathways from your
Equality and Diversity trainers.

So, explain the legal framework by which you are refusing to respond to
very straightforward questions AND clarify what YOU as a team dont
understand.

Yours faithfully,

Alea

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Williams, Peter,

Written with Advocacy Support

Do what you want however you want to do it in whatever way you have suggested because obviously Camden must be right about whether or not disabled persons can communicate clearly as you are the experts in everything and of course I am the problem rather than your team needing disability needs training or your housing management teams responding honestly in a way ordinary people with or without disabilities understand the term. And in line with laws.

Your initial response was considered deliberately vague and obstructive by legal advisers and other people not just me but that must be my fault as well i presume as it is my communication that is a problem not yours according to you. And only mine. And you have decided what my reasonable adjustment needs are as you are expert in this as well so go ahead answer in whatever form suits you as stated by you as this feels like sick games going on rather than just being transparent and factual . It clearly doesn't matter at this end stage if I understand a single word of the response none of it matters.

No one is presuming the response will be truthful or honest at this stage because of the way this request has gone and what that means. This is a public site and the response wont come in time for me but others concerned about the same severe breaches of confidentiality and the consequences that really harm tenants and put them at risk can refer to the legal response here and try make sense of what has been going on. FOI response is the council's legal position but maybe less patronising language towards a disabled requester would have looked better given circumstances.

Asked Camden really simple questions but obviously disabled persons shouldn't do this and must fit in to what your team can understand . Do whatever it was you stated and let the world decide if your response was because Camden are trying to hide information about unsafe practices and what camdens position is on disabled persons requesting FOI because your position is clear to me. My deficiency and defecits so i apologise yet again for being disabled and not communicating articulately or clear enough for a London council in 21st century .
Do what you want how you want publish here and world can try make sense of what Camden are stating

Yours sincerely,

Alea Alea

Williams, Peter, Camden Borough Council





Thank you for your e-mail.

 

I am currently out of the office and my emails will not be read until my
return to work on Thursday 22 October 2020.

 

Please forward any urgent information requests to [Camden Borough Council request email].

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Peter Williams Freedom of Information & Data Protection Officer Mon, Tues,
Thu & Fri

 

Information Access Officer Records & Information Management Team

London Borough of Camden

Phone: 02079744372 Fax: 02079746472 E-mail: [email address]
Web: [1]www.camden.gov.uk

This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, legally
privileged and/or copyright protected. This e-mail is intended for the
addressee only. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender
and delete the material from your computer. See our new Privacy Notice
[2]here which tells you how we store and process the data we hold about
you and residents.

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.camden.gov.uk
2. http://www.camden.gov.uk/privacystatement

Dear Camden Borough Council,

Given your failure to respond a referral will now be made to the ICO .

Yours faithfully,

Alea Alea

FOI, Camden Borough Council

We have received your email - thank you.

 

If your email is a Freedom of Information request we will log it and you
will receive a system acknowledgement with reference number within 3 days.
Please quote this case reference in all relevant correspondence.

You can also make a Freedom of Information request by using our [1]online
form. It's easier and you will receive an immediate acknowledgement.

 

If your email is not a FOI request we will be in touch to tell you how we
will deal with it. If it's easy to deal with your email may be dealt with
more informally as BAU (business as usual) and we may point you towards
information which is already published on our Open Data Portal
[2]https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/browse.

 

We do not reply to marketing emails and you should take us off your
circulation list.

This e-mail may contain information which is confidential, legally
privileged and/or copyright protected. This e-mail is intended for the
addressee only. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender
and delete the material from your computer. See our new Privacy Notice
[3]here which tells you how we store and process the data we hold about
you and residents.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.camden.gov.uk/formal-enquiry
2. https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/browse
3. http://www.camden.gov.uk/privacystatement

Camden Council, Camden Borough Council

2 Atodiad

London Borough of Camden
Information and Records Management
Judd Street
London.
WC1H 9JE
e-mail: [Camden Borough Council request email]

Dear Requester

Thank you for your recent request.  Your response is attached.

Please do not reply to this email address it is ‘no-reply’ and we will not
receive any emails sent to it.  The response attached explains what to do
if you are not happy with the response, otherwise please email
'[email address].’

We publish our responses on our Open Data Portal, you will be able to see
your response and others back to August 2017 [1]here, although there is a
small lag before publication.

Thank you for your interest in Camden council

Yours sincerely,

Peter Williams
Information Rights Officer

References

Visible links
1. https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/Your-Coun...

Dear Camden Borough Council,

So from this legal response on this FOI LB Camden state as following.If I am wrong please state where before I consider approaching the ICO within the next 7 about breaches of DPA statutes :

-There is some access given to housing managers in the Kentish Town area to confidential adult social services data for reasons inexplicable in the response/ there was access in the manner above but no there's not anymore and Camden ' mistakingly' stated this

- NO consent has EVER been sought from tenants and they have NEVER been told this has been happening

- NO consent has EVER been sought from other adults whose details appear on the same confidential records

- NO consent form has ever existed with NO explanation as to why not aside from the generic ' we believe we are compliant '.

- There is NO provision anywhere on either Mosaic adult social care records OR housing records to record when a tenant explicitly refuses consent to share ( begging the question how Camden checks this legal duty to abide)

- NO tenants who have explicitly refused to data share have had their data shared through housing officers accessing confidential social care records outside the VERY limited circumstances allow ( and where safeguarding is not an automatic exemption).

- Camden have not revised this position simply because it was exposed through this FOI. LB Camden had already ended the ' pilot' project

It would also seem apparent that no attempts have been made retrospectively to inform tenants of what has been happening.

There was no attempt to inform tenants at the time- despite the fact LB Camden have a newsletter delivered to ALL households in the borough.

Despite the fact that LB Camden tenants and leaseholders are regularly billed with other informative information enclosed with this data.

There are, as you stated, no records of consent.

It is presumed you are fully aware that this response has thrown up serious concerns about confidentiality and the seemingly generic belief that some cohorts of tenants are automatically excluded from the protection the law offers eg those with mental health challenges, those with learning disabilities

It is also of concern that LB Camden housing management cannot cite safeguarding as the legal basis in cases where NO safeguarding alerts have been formally raised.

Yours faithfully,

Alea

Laws, Sarah, Camden Borough Council

5 Atodiad

Dear Alea,

 

I have considered the comments you have made.  You are not complaining
about any issues that can be dealt with as an Internal Review as you are
disputing the factual basis of the situation you requested information
about and are disputing the way personal data is being handled.

 

Therefore this will not be processed as an Internal Review.

 

You can complain to the ICO about the data protection aspects if you
wish.  However I would point out, as already has been explained to you,
the issue of consent to processing and sharing is irrelevant in this
case.  The council must have a legal basis under GDPR articles 6 and 9. 
Consent is one of many available legal bases.  Where another legal basis
is used consent is not required.  Here the council is using legal duty and
pubic task as legal basis, so consent is not required.  Therefore the
absence of consent forms and so on is quite appropriate in data protection
terms.

 

This matter is now closed, if you wish to raise with the ICO as a data
protection complaint we will correspond with them in due course. 

 

Yours sincerely,

--
Sarah Laws
Team Leader - Information Rights
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Telephone: 020 7974 6550

   

The majority of Council staff are now working at home through remote,
secure access to our systems.

Where possible please now communicate with us by telephone or email. We
have limited staff in our offices to deal with post, but as most staff are
homeworking due to the current situation with COVID-19, electronic
communications will mean we can respond quickly.

 

.

 

From: Alea <[1][FOI #679432 email]>
Sent: 24 November 2020 07:34
To: FOI <[2][Camden Borough Council request email]>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Housing management job
descriptions, pay scales and confidentiality policies

 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Beware – This email originated outside Camden Council
and may be malicious Please take extra care with any links, attachments,
requests to take action or for you to verify your password etc. Please
note there have been reports of emails purporting to be about Covid 19
being used as cover for scams so extra vigilance is required.

Dear Camden Borough Council,

So from this legal response on this FOI LB Camden state as following.If I
am wrong please state where before I consider approaching the ICO within
the next 7 about breaches of DPA statutes :

-There is some access given to housing managers in the Kentish Town area
to confidential adult social services data for reasons inexplicable in the
response/ there was access in the manner above but no there's not anymore
and Camden ' mistakingly' stated this

- NO consent has EVER been sought from tenants and they have NEVER been
told this has been happening

- NO consent has EVER been sought from other adults whose details appear
on the same confidential records

- NO consent form has ever existed with NO explanation as to why not aside
from the generic ' we believe we are compliant '.

- There is NO provision anywhere on either Mosaic adult social care
records OR housing records to record when a tenant explicitly refuses
consent to share ( begging the question how Camden checks this legal duty
to abide)

- NO tenants who have explicitly refused to data share have had their data
shared through housing officers accessing confidential social care records
outside the VERY limited circumstances allow ( and where safeguarding is
not an automatic exemption).

- Camden have not revised this position simply because it was exposed
through this FOI. LB Camden had already ended the ' pilot' project

It would also seem apparent that no attempts have been made
retrospectively to inform tenants of what has been happening.

There was no attempt to inform tenants at the time- despite the fact LB
Camden have a newsletter delivered to ALL households in the borough.

Despite the fact that LB Camden tenants and leaseholders are regularly
billed with other informative information enclosed with this data.

There are, as you stated, no records of consent.

It is presumed you are fully aware that this response has thrown up
serious concerns about confidentiality and the seemingly generic belief
that some cohorts of tenants are automatically excluded from the
protection the law offers eg those with mental health challenges, those
with learning disabilities

It is also of concern that LB Camden housing management cannot cite
safeguarding as the legal basis in cases where NO safeguarding alerts have
been formally raised.

Yours faithfully,

Alea

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir