FT/EA/2025/0067/GDPR - [2025] UKFTT 01133 (GRC)

Discussion and conclusions

The Respondent provided the Applicant with a response to his complaint on 18 July 2024 in which he found that THS had more work to do and he had contacted THS to ask them to provide a copy of the Applicant’s medical notes in hard copy format. I consider that this was an outcome to the Applicant’s complaint. This was followed up by a further letter on 19 August 2024 which reiterated the previous response and stated that “It is not the ICO’s role to resolve matters on behalf of individuals, rather to provide a view as to whether an organisation is likely or unlikely to have complied with the data protection legislation.” This letter advised that the complaint was now closed. Even if I am wrong about the earlier letter being an outcome in itself, I am satisfied that when taken together the responses dated 18 July and 19 August 2024 both provided an outcome to the complaint and demonstrated that the Respondent had given consideration to whether there were other appropriate steps which could be taken to progress the Applicant’s complaint. It appears to me therefore that there were no further appropriate steps which the Respondent ought reasonably to have taken to progress the complaint.  In making this decision I have given significant weight to the view of the Respondent as the expert regulator that there were no further appropriate steps he should have taken. Accordingly it follows that the Respondent’s handling of the Applicant’s complaint has been concluded because an outcome has been issued and there are no further appropriate steps to be taken.

The Applicant’s other points appear to be concerned with the fact that he remains dissatisfied with the response he has received from THS. The Tribunal does not have the power under section 166 to compel a public authority, here THS, to comply with a request for information. As stated in paragraph 47 of the Respondent’s Response dated 6 May 2025, the appropriate route to seek such an order is through the civil courts under section 167 of DPA 2018, not through this Tribunal. The Tribunal’s power under section 166 is limited to making an order for the Respondent to progress its handling of the complaint.

I therefore find an outcome was provided to the Applicant’s complaint which means that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reopen the complaint or to order that it be reinvestigated or investigated in a particular way. I am also satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the case, or any part of it, succeeding because the outcome sought by the Applicant is not something which is within the Tribunal’s power to grant.  

The proceedings are therefore struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with them and under Rule 8(3)(a) because there is no reasonable prospect of them succeeding.