FT/EA/2025/0102/GDPR - [2025] UKFTT 01137 (GRC)

NCN: [2025] UKFTT 01137 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0102/GDPR

First-tier Tribunal

(General Regulatory Chamber)

Information Rights

Decided without a hearing

Decision given on: 30 September 2025

Before

JUDGE HARRIS

Between

DAVID VAN VUUREN

Applicant

and

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Decision: The proceedings are struck out under Rule 8(3) because there is no reasonable prospect of them 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 Everyone Active (“EA”), which was submitted to the Respondent on 16 October 2024 (Reference IC-339843-W5R7).

The Application was made by the Applicant by form GRC3 dated 15 February 2025 and in it the Applicant stated that he sought an order “to get the ICO to take action on my complaint”.

The Respondent wrote to the Applicant on 24 March 2025. It provided the following response:

“We have reviewed the information provided in relation to your subject access request and are satisfied with the response which Everyone Active has provided to you. We understand that Everyone Active has stated that the meeting regarding your ban was not recorded therefore there was no documentation around this. We cannot compel an organisation to provide information as part of a subject access request if they do not hold this data. Further to this, we would not expect organisations to create new information to respond to a subject access request, they are only compelled to provide data which they already hold. If you have evidence that Everyone Active holds the information you are requesting, please provide this to the ICO so we can revisit this part of the complaint.

We understand you may have concerns that a formal record was not held in relation to your ban, however we cannot commend on an organisation’s processes when implementing a ban on gym members. If you have concerns about this, you should consult the organisation’s internal complaints policy.

Further to this, we understand you have concerns that details of your concerns were shared with other members of the gym. We have written to Everyone Active about this aspect of your complaint. We have requested they review your concerns and provide you with their findings in relation to this. If the organisation believes they have complied with the law, we expect them to clearly explain that to you. However, if something has gone wrong, we expect them to work with you to put things right and to learn from their experiences and improve their practices. We expect they will be in contact with you soon.”

On the same date the Respondent’s case officer wrote to EA and raised the Applicant’s concerns. EA wrote to the Respondent on 25 March 2025 and provided a copy of the email they sent to the Applicant. In that email, EA confirmed that they had investigated the matter and assured him that his personal data was not shared with other gym members.

The Respondent applied by way of form GRC5 dated 28 March 2025 to strike out the Application 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 Applicant to withdraw the Application, failing which he invited the Tribunal to strike out the Application because there was no reasonable prospect of the proceedings succeeding.

The Tribunal issued case management directions dated 12 June 2025 which gave the Applicant an opportunity to make representations about the proposed striking out of the Application by 27 June 2025. No response or further correspondence has been received by the Tribunal from the Applicant.