Enter case reference FT/EA/2025/0157/GDPR - [2025] UKFTT 01230 (GRC)

Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 01230 (GRC)

Case Reference: Enter case reference FT/EA/2025/0157/GDPR

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Information Rights

Decided without a hearing

Decision given on: 17 October 2025

Before

JUDGE HARRIS

Between

JOSE MARQUES

Applicant

and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Decision: The Application is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) 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 (the “Application”) under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”) for an order to progress the Applicant’s complaints against Riverside Housing Association (“RHA”) regarding the alleged mishandling of his personal data, unauthorised contact with Universal Credit and suspected alteration of email content. The complaint was submitted to the Information Commissioner (“IC”) on 10 September 2024 who assigned a case officer and allocated the reference IC-332100-Z6F9.

On 6 January 2025, the IC wrote to the Applicant to apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint, which was due to a high volume of complaints being received. In order to progress the complaint, the Applicant was asked to provide further correspondence with RHA, which he duly provided on 8 January 2025.

On 23 January 2025, the IC emailed the Applicant to confirm that the additional information provided was under review.

Having reviewed the evidence provided, the IC’s case officer wrote to the Applicant on 30 January 2025. The case officer concluded that Riverside Housing Association had complied with its data protection obligations and was satisfied with the justification provided for the sharing of the Applicant’s personal data with the DWP. It was explained that organisations do not always require consent to share personal information, provided they have a lawful basis for doing so. The Applicant was also signposted to RHA’s privacy policy on their website, which set out how residents’ personal information may be shared with the DWP and other organisations. The case officer advised that, in their view, there was no evidence to suggest that RHA inappropriately deleted or altered the content of any emails sent to the Applicant. Accordingly, the IC concluded that no further action was required.

On the same day, the Applicant requested an internal case review of his complaint.

On 31 January 2025, the Applicant sent the IC a judicial review pre-action protocol letter, expressing his dissatisfaction with the complaint outcome and requested a response within 14 days. On 10 February 2025, the Applicant sent a further email requesting a response to his pre- action letter within seven days. The Applicant also updated his pre-action letter to include reference to the High Court ruling in R (Roberts) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] EWHC 51 (Admin). The Applicant advised that, should the IC not respond, he would pursue a judicial review claim.

On 11 February 2025, the case officer acknowledged the Applicant’s email and advised that the IC would provide an update upon further review of the information provided.

On 21 February 2025, the Applicant advised the case officer that he had initiated legal proceedings.

The IC’s case officer wrote to the Applicant on 25 March 2025, and apologised for the delay in providing a response to his concerns about the outcome, explaining that further research was needed. After reviewing R (Roberts) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] EWHC 51 (Admin), the case officer concluded that the judgment was not relevant, as it concerns DWP processes for deducting payments in order to make direct payments to a landlord. In this case, the IC’s assessment remained that the data sharing was likely lawful. The Applicant was advised that the outcome would be reviewed by a lead case officer, and the Applicant would be updated once this is complete.

The Applicant responded on 26 March 2025, and stated that he is filing for a judicial review as a result of not receiving a response within seven days. As at the time of filing its Response on 6 October 2025, no judicial review claim form had been received by the IC.

On 2 April 2025, the IC’s reviewing officer wrote to the Applicant with the review outcome. He was satisfied that the case officer had handled the complaint appropriately and in accordance with the ICO’s case handling procedures. Accordingly, he advised the Applicant that the matter would not be pursued further.