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

NCN: [2025] UKFTT 01133 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0067/GDPR

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Information Rights

Decided without a hearing

Decision given on: 25 September 2025

Before

JUDGE HARRIS

Between

IAN DAVID SPENCER

Applicant

and

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Decision: The Application is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it and under Rule 8(3)(c) on the basis that there is no realistic 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 complaint against handling of a Subject Access Request (“SAR”) by Tower House Surgery (“THS”), which was submitted to the Respondent on 24 January 2024 (Reference IC-284522-V3R5).

On 8 May 2024, the Respondent’s case officer contacted the Applicant to inform him that it was unclear from the evidence provided whether a SAR was made to THS and requested further information. The Applicant provided further information by a letter dated 22 May 2024.

On 6 June 2025, the case officer contacted THS and requested the contact details of the person who was in a position to deal with the complaint. THS responded the same day and the Respondent wrote to THS asking for further details about the Applicant’s complaint concerning his SAR. THS responded on 21 June 2024 and provided a detailed chronology as to the handling of his SAR and access to medical notes. The case officer subsequently clarified with THS that the Applicant has requested hard copies of his notes.

On 18 July 2024, the Respondent’s case officer wrote to the Applicant to confirm that THS would be providing hard copies of the medical records requested, although it also noted that because the Applicant had not provided proof of delivery of the letter sent to THS, it was difficult to determine whether or not THS had breached its data protection obligations. The Applicant provided further evidence on 2 August 2024.

On 19 August 2024, the Respondent’s case officer responded to the Applicant and reiterated that THS had been instructed to provide him with his medical notes in a hard copy format and provided further explanations concerning the next steps the Applicant could take if dissatisfied. The Respondent then closed its complaint.

Between 2 September 2024 and 19 November 2024, the Applicant sent further correspondence to the Respondent. The Respondent’s case officer acknowledged this on 20 November 2024 and noted that many of the concerns related to the NHS app with which the Respondent was unable to assist. The Respondent reiterated that the complaint was closed.

The Applicant made the Application to the Tribunal by way of form GRC1 on 5 December 2024 seeking an order that the Tribunal “allow the appeal and substitute a notice that orders the public authority to take steps in relation to the request for information. (Not just for me but for everyone)”. This appears to be seeking an order to compel THS to provide the information and in the reasons for the Application the Applicant stated “Well, it is the organisation (Tower House Surgery) that is the problem. I am unable to move on to another Surgery as there will be negative information from Tower House Surgery that will go with me!”

The Application was treated by the Tribunal as being an application for an order to progress the Respondent’s investigation into the Applicant’s complaint.

The Respondent applied by way of form GRC5 dated 6 May 2025 to strike out the Application on the basis that the order sought was not one which the Tribunal has the power to grant under section 166 and also on the basis that he had now taken steps to comply with the procedural requirements set out in section 166(1) of the DPA 2018 and there therefore no basis for the Tribunal to make an order under section 166(2). The Respondent invited the Tribunal to strike out the Application because it did not have jurisdiction to deal with it under Rule 8(2)(a) and/or there was no reasonable prospect of the proceedings succeeding under Rule 8(3)(c). He also pointed out that if the Applicant wishes to seek an order of compliance against THS the correct route to do so is through civil proceedings under section 167 of DPA 2018.

The Tribunal directed on 8 July 2025 that the Applicant should provide any representations in relation to the application to strike out the proceedings by 25 July 2025.

On 10 July 2025, the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal enclosing a copy of his response to the strike out application dated 15 May 2025. He gave the following reasons:

“ it was stated in communication from the Information Commissioner on more than one occasion that my case was closed and yet communication continued. I was not informed what my choices were regarding what my options were if I disagreed with any decisions made and how I was to go about these options to assist with solving any problems”

“I was totally unaware of the fact that my case was closed ‘without redress’ until realisation of choices”

“I have requested on many occasions in a truly non spurious ways, including any and all information regarding, observations, comments, treatment tests and results by Medical and Nursing Staff over the years. What appears to have been sent/released do not appear to be the full picture and some information being ‘cherry picked’”

“I found judgments and comments that were damaging to my character and sometimes future treatment! All totally without redress. This cannot be right. Non of which is fair, non scientific, some extremely subjective, some assumptions made on wrong information and ‘old friends/acquaintances’ assisting in perpetuating situations. All without redress!”