A man mutilated for life in an acid attack is suing police, alleging that they failed to act on information that should have stopped his ordeal before it began.

Daniel Rotariu, 33, was attacked in July 2016 by his then partner, Katie Leong, who poured sulphuric acid over him as he slept at their home in Leicester in an attempt to kill him.

Two professionals had passed police information five months before the attack that Leong was acquiring potentially lethal acid and possibly intended to throw it on someone, but officers took no action. Leong used her former partner, Mark Cummings, to buy the acid.

She poured half a litre of 96% pure sulphuric acid over Rotariu for six seconds, leaving him screaming in agony and fighting for his life as his skin burned.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Katie Leong, who attacked Daniel Rotariu with acid.

He was in a coma for six weeks, in hospital for six months and left blind, with facial disfigurement and burns on his body. He still requires medical treatment.

Leong was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to a minimum of 17 years in jail. Cummings was acquitted.

The evidence that police had been warned Leong was obtaining acid is contained in a report by the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Rotariu said: “The police deny they had any legal obligation to protect me or any other potential victims of Katie’s madness. They received information that Katie was acquiring acid, but they just closed the file and did nothing.”

Cummings told his probation officer before the attack that Leong wanted to buy acid and use it on someone. He also told a medical professional that he had bought the acid for Leong, who had a restraining order against him over alleged domestic abuse.

Both the probation officer and medical professional passed the information on to police.

In February 2016, five months before the attack, Cummings also told an alcohol nurse that Leong wanted him to buy acid, which he would probably do the following week. He said Leong had previously talked of throwing acid in someone’s face.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Daniel Rotariu before the attack.

Cummings’s probation officer phoned police a few days later to say the acid had been ordered and that it was a “recipe for disaster”. There was no specific mention of Rotariu as the target, but he says police had information from two credible sources that she was acquiring the means to kill someone and fantasising about using it, but failed to act.

Rotariu, who still requires frequent medical treatment, said: “I’m living in a prison of darkness. It took away my independence, my ability to work. It took away my sight. I will never see my fiancee and my baby’s face. I will never be able to walk freely. I will always depend on somebody. More than two years after the attack, I’m still on the hospital corridors every week.”

He says it is important to sue the police to hold them to account, and he is crowdfunding his action because he is not eligible for legal aid. “When it comes to public safety, it’s important for everybody to highlight mistakes like this, so in the future people don’t get hurt,” he said.

Rotariu, who used to work in manufacturing, added: “My duty was to be sure my machines were safe to operate, so none of my colleagues could get hurt. If somebody could get injured because of my mistake, I was the one who was going to be held responsible and prosecuted. The same applies to everybody, including the police.

“The police have a duty of prevention, protection and to investigate. Unfortunately they missed out all these in my case. If they were doing their job properly, this attack could have been avoided.”

Leicestershire police declined to discuss any aspect of the case, but said: “We are aware of legal proceedings taken by Daniel Rotariu against the force. Due to the ongoing nature of this we cannot comment further at this stage.”

An IOPC investigation found failings but said they did not amount to a need for disciplinary action against any officer or civilian staff.

Craig Court, Rotariu’s solicitor, said: “It seems clear that the police had more than enough information to take action that would have avoided the catastrophic consequences for this man’s life. It’s very much in the public interest that the courts rule on this matter, but we need public support in order to bring the case.”