EA/2024/0029/GDPR - [2025] UKFTT 01143 (GRC)

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 01143 (GRC)

Case Reference: EA/2024/0029/GDPR

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Information Rights

Decided without a hearing

Decision given on: 1 October 2025

Before

JUDGE HARRIS

Between

ANDREY KHADYKA

Applicant

and

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Decision: The Application is struck out under rule 8(2) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it and under rule 8(3)(a) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.

REASONS

These proceedings concern an application under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”) for an order to progress the Applicant’s data handling complaint dated 13 October 2024 (the “Complaint”), reference IC-264625-B2L4) concerning a request for erasure of their personal data made to McKenzie Friend Law Support Limited (“MFLS”).

On 13 October 2023, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent. His letter stated that “1 year ago I have already complained to the ICO about [MFLS] refusing to delete my personal information. (Case reference IC-163257-D0Z9). However the ICO did not uphold my complaint because we were in legal dispute with [director of MFLS]. 9 May 2022 his claim has been dismissed and 14/09/23 I emailed him again asking to delete my personal information. He did not respond and 26/09/2023 I emailed him a Complaint which he ignored too. Now I have to make another complaint asking you to make him fulfil his obligations.” It appears from this that there are historic complaints concerning these parties in the context of previous legal proceedings, but this application is concerned only with the Complaint.

The Respondent wrote to the Applicant on 6 February 2024 asking for further information, which the Applicant provided the same day.

On 19 February 2024, the Respondent’s case officer wrote to the Applicant informing him that there was no evidence on record of him having made a formal request to MFLS to delete personal data and no documentation of a complaint being raised to MFLS concerning deletion of the data. The Respondent outlined the formal request process the Applicant would need to follow and the timeline for such a request.

On 23 February 2024, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent to complain about his handling of the Applicant’s data protection complaint about MFLS.

Following a review, the Respondent responded to the Applicant on 25 March 2024. He informed the Applicant of his view that the case officer had dealt with the Complaint appropriately and in line with the Respondent’s case handling procedures and service standards. Accordingly, he advised the Applicant that he would take no further action.

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal by way of form T98 dated 23 January 2024 (the “Application”), but this appears not to have been received by the Respondent until 27 November 2024. The Application sought the following outcome: “Order to the ICO to investigate both of my Complaints. The Defendant (ICO) to pay compensation”.

On 7 January 2025, having received the Application and reviewed the Complaint afresh, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant saying the following:
“After considering the information provided we are of the view that [MFLS] have not complied with their data protection obligations. This is because they did not respond to your erasure request within the one calendar month set out in the legislation. We have now asked them to contact you directly in regards to your request for erasure, and to ensure that they address any other outstanding data protection concerns that you may have. We expect they will contact you in due course, within the next 14 calendar days. A record of how this complaint has been handled will be kept on file and will help inform our regulatory work.”

The Respondent applied by way of form GRC5 dated 13 January 2025 to strike out the Application (the “strike-out application) on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it under Rule 8(2)(a) and/or that there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding under Rule 8(3)(c).

On 15 August 2025 Judge Oliver directed that the Applicant either notify the Tribunal that he wished to withdraw the Application or provide representations in response to the strike-out application within 14 days. No response has been received from the Applicant.