FT/EA/2025/0203/GDPR - [2025] UKFTT 01313 (GRC)

As I have noted, section 166 is concerned with providing a remedy for any procedural failings on the part of the Commissioner after a complaint is made to him (not the merits of the complaint or its outcome). The Tribunal may only make an order under section 166(2) only if the Commissioner has failed in some procedural respect.

The procedural failings in question are those set out in section 166(1), which (in summary and paraphrasing) are as follows:

At the time of the Application, it appears (from the evidence available to me) that there was no response from the Commissioner to the Complaint. However, the Commissioner did deal with the Complaint after the date of the Application. The evidence shows that certain steps were taken by the Commissioner and that an outcome to the Complaint was provided by the Commissioner, as referred to in the next paragraph.

The Commissioner concluded that there was a failing on the part of the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the Applicant’s subject access request. The Commissioner advised the Applicant (by way of a letter dated 1 August 2025) that he had contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office advising it to take certain specified steps.

Given the above, I therefore find that the Commissioner has taken appropriate steps to respond to the Complaint and provided the Applicant with an outcome to the Complaint (albeit he did not do so within three months of receiving the Complaint).

It is important to reiterate that, for the purposes of section 166, the merits or substance of the Complaint are not relevant - but rather only the procedural actions which the Commissioner is required to take in respect of it.