- Submitted
- Acknowledged
- Response Due
- LATE Response Actual
- Submitted
Background
This document was compiled after the events so a certian amount hindsight. However my feelings towards Haringey Council only get worse. They are going to kill someone.
This Subject Access Request (SAR) stems from claims made by Tracy Park
In relation to the servicing contract for the Sara Stedy Plus hoist, I can confirm that the Occupational Therapy team contacted Arjo on 8 May 2026 and again on 18 May 2026 regarding this matter. Copies of the relevant correspondence will be included within the Subject Access Request response that is currently being prepared and is expected to be provided to you early next week.
According to the statement, Haringey Council initially contacted the manufacturer of the Sara Plus Hoist on , a follow up until .
Given the consistent lack of adherence to regulatory guidelines and internal protocols demonstrated throughout this case and historical cases, there is no longer a credible basis for trusting the administrative competence of the assigned staff. From a complete lack of trust stand point a SAR was initiated.Acknowledgment
Response
The response was received after the deadline established in the local authority's own Acknowledgment.
In a striking revelation, the provided files did technically partiialy validate the timeline claims made by Tracy Park. The documentation confirms an initial outbound inquiry was transmitted on , followed by a subsequent chase email on
Clarification is needed. The SAR was made so would an email sent on the 28th but in the scope of the request? The obvious way to mitigate these concerns would be to include the individual in the emails.
Rather than vindicating the department, these verified dates conclusively corroborate my position: a administrative delay between communications explicitly proves that Adult Social Care is failing to treat a critical safety asset issue with the required regulatory urgency.