Dear North London Partners in Health and Care.,

NHS 111 / integrated urgent care services for Camden and Islington boroughs are provided by London Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative (LCW UCC) .

They have advised that ALL questions relating to operations and data sharing be directed to yourselves as protocols agreed are set by you and monitored by you.

Given the nature of the FOI and the impact such practices on trust and access to healthcare is currently having , please note that as the body responsible for commissioning and contracting it is a requirement that you respond in that capacity.

This FOI is in relation to when those with a mental health ( MH ) condition or fall in to the category 'known to mental health services ' ring 111 and are put through to the above organisation.

( 1) Where an individual has set their phone as a withheld number then this is explicit refusal to data share.
This right is a preserved legal right and in statute ONLY emergency services are legally allowed telephonic systems that override.

NHS 111 is NOT an emergency service.
NHS 111 is NOT a police service.

Confirm or otherwise if the above NHS 111 service is accessing individuals telephone data in a manner that overrides the explicit right to withhold.

If doing so ( and anecdotedly this is widely reported ) provide the exact statute including section and paragraph relied on to breach said legal protection.

(2) As an extension to the above please provide the following information:

Where the non MH option is selected by the caller then confirm or otherwise if the call handler can see the telephone number called from on screen.

Where the MH option is selected confirm or otherwise the same.

( 3) There is significant feedback from those using the MH option that where they have a withheld number status call handlers confirm they can see said number.

Given this, please provide the following information:

- ALL protocols, policies and inter organisation directives, where reference to this is made on ANY basis whatsoever in communications or interagency meetings held by North London Partners and/ or London Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative (LCW UCC)

- Confirm or otherwise if the NHS 111 MH option is using police telephonic pathways to intercept said data

- Confirm or otherwise the same question 're LAS pathways or other health related emergency pathways

(4 ) To access such personal data without explicit consent, and where this has clearly been withheld, is obviously a serious breach of law unless there are clear legal grounds.

Confirm if call handlers are instructed NOT to inform pts that data sensitive information subjected to legal protection is being shared.

( 5) Given the above system is clearly in place for certain or all callers to the MH option, provide the Equality Impact assessment that is required when a deviation of service is agreed based SOLELY on a protected characteristic of disability

(6) Provide details of the algorithm used that automatically generates an ambulance is sent even when NHS 111 are told it is not needed or requested.

Include all criteria , wording, and protocols relating to this

(7) There is a legal right for ALL pts to withhold data. With VERY few legal exceptions and blanket policies are deemed unlawful across all case law.

There is NO automatic exception in MH care.

In addition to the questions above confirm or otherwise if London Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative (LCW UCC) are participants and partners in ANY interagency data sharing protocols in MH.

Please list these.

Please confirm if this includes the Serenity Integration Mentoring scheme ( SIM), the High Intensity Network ( HIN) or ANY other similar protocols as used in both Camden and Islington.

Given these are covert schemes confirm if accessing telephone data in the manner happening is an agreed part of said schemes.

Yours faithfully,

Alea Alea ( legal name changed by deed poll)

Dear North London Partners in Health and Care.,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of North London Partners in Health and Care.'s handling of my FOI request 'NHS 111 and integrated urgent care - access of data in mental health pathways/ use of police databases when pts call'.

It is not accepted that you do not hold the information given that you commission or are delegated by commissioners and in that role are the managing body, set the terms of the contract, have a legal duty of governance, have a legal duty to monitor and submit national data and that there are appointed officers within North London Partners to carry out such functions.

As such, this response is considered obstructive.

The NHS 111 service you have referred me to have already been asked the same questions and referred back to you.

Legally you are required to respond and claiming you do not hold such information to try and block release is of very serious concern given the known and well publicised failings of mental health crisis services.

All obstruction does is to raise very serious red flags about management of mental health crisis services where commissioners and delegated partnerships claim to know absolutely nothing about governance and safety issues.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

Yours faithfully,

Alea

Dear FOI (NHS NEL CSU),

An internal review was requested over 20 days ago.

You have failed to respond with the information requested despite you being the responsible organisation holding such data.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear FOI (NHS NEL CSU),

An internal review was requested in May 2021.
You have failed to respond.
If you do not do so within 5 working days a referral will be made to the ICO

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear FOI (NHS NEL CSU),

Written with advocate support

This is a public site.
Where the requests are visible.
Which show the requests you claim you can't find.
Twice .

An internal review was requested on 18th May and followed up on 17 th June 2021 and again on 2nd Jan 2022.

Your explanation for failing to reply as legally required is not accepted.
It is known you have been in direct consultation with partner agencies and ' discussed' a coordinated decision to ignore the request.

The reasons for this are considered to be as follows:

That the covert nature ( and denial) of how you are operating is potentially a very significant data protection breach on multiple fronts;

That using emergency service pathways in such a manner is discriminatory and a breach of the Equality Act;

That operating in this covert manner ( where contact cte staff are seemingly told to deny they can see the numbers being called from ) is a direct breach of RIPA given there is no legal basis where access to withheld numbers can be justified and an application to the court is required to access such private telecommunications;

That you are acting in breach of all NHS England & Improvement statutory guidance;

That your actions directly increase likelihood of escalation of risk and as such may well constitute clinical negligence in a number of cases.

Furthermore, and VERY specifically the decision to ignore the requests are consistent with NHS 111 operating the SIM / HIN scheme in mental health that the CCG claims it has no knowledge of.
You have viewed other FOIs regarding this.

When NHS England & Improvement instructed all NHS services to stop doing so given the coercive, unlawful and clinically dangerous impact such protocols have had, including where deaths have occurred.

It is also clear that you are concerned re the public interest basis for disclosure of what has been requested when the basis is very clear for all the reasons listed above .
In addition the fact that your actions have direct impact on the very patients and carers who are meant to be able to access NHS advice without having their private sensitive data being accessed - ie withheld telephone numbers - is clearly of public interest.

Presumably you are aware that very many patients and carers now do not contact NHS 111 for these exact reasons ?

You don't use the emergency service line and trace any other patients telephone calls except in mental health.

Despite it not being an emergency line nor a crisis line nor there being a clinician answering phones - thereby reinforcing that this is an unlawful, unsafe and discriminatory blanket policy being applied to manage your service.

You are reminded that not only are you legally required to comply with legitimate requests ( and made a decision not to ) any and all responses are evidential and in line with MoJ rules admissable in a court of law.

Please ensure that you respond to the actual points raised in the internal review request of 18th May 2021 and address the points raised today.

Please do so without further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear FOI (NHS NEL CSU),

Written with Support

This case has now been referred to the ICO given the level of obstruction .
You were required by law to respond and that response is required to be truthful and in compliance with all Data Protection statute.

You had 9 mnths to respond to an internal review request and chose to ignore for all the reasons laid down in previous annotation.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear FOI (NHS NEL CSU),

Before this is referred to the ICO and/or public awareness is raised through other routes you are being given one more chance to review your response.

You are reminded that it is required to be lawful.
You are yet again referred to ICO statutory guidance, the Data Protection Act itself and all subsequent amendments as well as RIPA.

All affected plus all allies are also FULLY aware of the discussions and meetings held regarding the issues brought up by this request and the coordinated responses of partner agencies who have been covertly - and unsafely - operating unlawful protocols aimed at mental health pts and mental health pts only.
.
Particularly as you are listed as an active partner in SIM/HIN and similar coercive protocols NHS England have advised as being clinically unsafe and where all MH Trusts were put on notice of this.

So, the timing of your delayed responses become even more relevant.

You deliberately delayed the response for 10 mnths for all the reasons laid out because to respond any earlier would mean you would have had to admit to policies and actions that have been detrimental and would be unlawful and/or illegal.

It is of VERY significant public interest that NHS 111 was using emergency channels with the capability of tracking individuals calls in such a manner AT THE TIME THIS FOI WAS MADE.

That you then choose to mislead and obstruct in the manner you have is of additional concern and duly noted.

Such obstruction where a particular cohort has been disproportionately and covertly targeted is , as you are very well aware, a matter that would have to be escalated given the seriousness of such actions by an NHS body.

The original request was made in May 2021.
Therefore in order for the response to be lawful the information provided by you is ONLY applicable to that date and all dates preceding.

As public body there is a reasonable expectation of candour from you and this threshold has so far not been met.

You have 10 working days in which to respond lawfully.
After that action will be taken given the seriousness of the concerns reported by dozens of vulnerable patients who according to you are somehow 'mistaken' when reporting what has happened to them.

Is your position that they all just 'imagined' that they were called back by NHS 111 or London Ambulance Service or the Metropolitan Police when their numbers are withheld?

Is your position that what was outlined has NEVER occurred within your service?

Such attitudes just add to the discriminatory behaviour and actions whereby the legal rights of those with a mental health illness or condition or disability have been overridden.

Yours sincerely,

Alea