Information Commissioner's Office Opiniões 510

Would be less than 1 if possible!

I been to these a few times and every time seems to be a complete farce - I'm trying court action now instead.

It seems how ever strong the evidence the other side isn't in the wrong

The ICO allow the baddies to hide in plain sight - our evidence has to be given to the other side but not a single word as the evidence on other side needs to be true as is hidden by the ICO who made themselves exempt from data disclosure - just like other agencies looking after the already too powerful dishonest people.

The ICO have been taking duplicate payments for years for an SME I am involved with, and now refuse to reimburse the outstanding collections.

The amount has accumulated to only a few hundred pounds, however it’s the principle of the matter, for the duplicate account was set up with the wrong corporate structure, by an ex employee.

This erroneous account has been allowed to remain active by the ICO, despite there being an accurate account running concurrently for the business.

I am publicly reviewing the ICO as it is now proven that anyone with the business bank account details can set up an ICO membership, as there are no mechanisms in place to vet the registration.

I have been advised to raise a complaint, however following the unreasonableness and unbending position demonstrated by one of their reps today, I cannot see it being worth the time.

Absolute waste of time especially if the organisation is government run. I had two situations in one a data breach by South Yorkshire Police which they had to admit prior to my case being concluded. However when I got my response from the ICO they confirmed the data breach but then said they were satisfied with the investigation. When I asked the ICO if the breach was reported to them the answer I got was “I don’t know” I asked how you can be satisfied if you don’t even know if they followed your own guidelines set out clearly on your own website. I asked for this to confirmed and instead I got an email stating they could not find evidence of the breach being reported and some breaches don’t need reporting however this one definitely did according to ICO guidelines. Very poor and disappointing experience.

The second was against the London Fire Brigade I submitted a SAR and it was backed using the third party exemption which is fine. When I asked for the process to allow the willing and capable third party to give their consent I never was provided with the process to facilitate the consent and therefore did not get my SAR. As the DPA 2018 clearly states “There is an exemption in the DPA 2018 that says you do not have to comply with a SAR, if doing so means disclosing information which identifies another individual, except where:
the other individual has consented to the disclosure;”

I knew this was not correct so I took it to the ICO. What a waste of time they actually answered a whole different question and when I requested a review they answered a totally different question yet again I have since had to take this to the PHSO as a complaint. All I will say is do your own research seek legal advice as GDPR and DPA2018 have set firm rules that have to be followed and do carry legal ramifications. The ICO is literally a glorified opinion especially when dealing with government agencies they no longer give monetary fines to therefore they are toothless and a waste of time.

Utterly, utterly useless.

I experienced a GDPR breach - this organisation, although presented with clear evidence of the breach, refused to confirm that the organisation concerned had actually, definitively, committed a breach.

What is the point of this organisation?

Hopefully I will never be at the receiving end of a GDPR breach again - but if I am I will certainly not waste my time by contacting the ICO.

There needs to be an independent inquiry into this lot - they are not fit for purpose.

Like a needy girlfriend mithering and begging for a few quid

A CYNICAL AND DECEITFUL RESPONSE TO LETTER SENT TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
In my letter I posed questions such as:
"In what circumstances DOES the ICO take regulatory action?"
"Is it the position of the ICO that they won't take any substantive action,even if the complainant is experiencing exactly the same problem over and over again?What if the company doesn't give a damn about the law?Do you propose simply to exhort them to comply with their legal obligations?
The ICO advised me that I have a right to apply to a court if I believe there has been a contravention of my rights under data protection legislation.
I asked Mr.Edwards the question:how many of your clients are known to have taken legal action against enormously powerful energy companies,each year,to try to enforce their GDPR rights?
Mr.Edwards didn't bother to reply to my letter.He passed it on to some bloke in the "Information Access Team".He didn't make the slightest attempt to answer a single one of the questions that I raised.His letter was a skilful exercise in deceit and obfuscation.
But what can one expect from an organisation that is funded by the companies that it is supposed to investigate and regulate-talk about a conflict of interest! The ICO works for the benefit of the companies that we,the public,are trying to complain about.PITY I CAN'T AWARD ZERO STARS.
How could the ICO improve?It should be nationalised and funded by the government (i.e. independently).The companies that continually infringe GDPR regs.should be fined heavily - to pay for the new independent service.

The ICO tolerate abuses of the Freedom of Information Act and side with institutions who submit knowingly false information in response to FOI requests, which is a criminal offence under Section 144 of the Freedom of Information Act.

The ICO refuses to hold those institutions to account snd allows the unlawful dissemination of false information in response to FOI requests.

This was the case with Brighton & Hove City Council who provided false information in relation to a fraud which they had enabled and also benefitted from.

The false information BHCC provided was done to prevent the full extent of their complicity being exposed. The ICO enabled BHCC to cover up that complicity by allowing them to provide false information without being held to account.

The ICO are not fit for purpose.

A disabled child's suicide attempt after being placed by a private school into A Levels when the child never even passed high school GCSE equivalences in her own country and limited English language skills was the contents of a SAR by a parent wanting to know if the Independent School Inspectorafe inspectors were notified in an inspection that failed the school. As there was no mention of it in their inspection report . The Schools Chief Operating officer lied said no documents were hidden but evaded disclosure of the actual document. The ISI legal director already refuted it but they too did nothing. The ICO case worker called the school who admitted they never disclosed it which proved for the second time the school lied to the parent even though she already had rebuttal emails.

So a false SAR hiding a suicide attempt to the parent a GP. Is allowed to be buried by the ICO abd swept under the carpet.

Now the school is refusing to disclose the document recording the suicide but who in its leadership authorised the suicide attempt to be hidden which would make a bad inspection worse.
As also expected the Inspectorate also won't ask and have tried to bury this.

But the ICO caseworker writes to the parent a mother and GP for 25 years. The case worker thinks wanting to know and have disclosure as to documentation as to who at the school management authorised that they witheld her daughters suicide attempt is asking for a 'complete solution' by the parent wanting the document recording her daughters suicide attempt, and the risk assessment and who at the top of the school authorised it shoukd be hidden from the 5 inspectors after it was escalated to the headmaster.

The case worker knew from her own call to the school they lied in a SAR but also had the rebuttal email from the Inspectorates head of legal they were never advised. And what did the ICO case worker do.
Nothing no enforcement no sanction no action when records are lost.. but tells the parent they don't offer 'complete solutions',Those were the case workers actual words and they do nothing.

The school leadership authorised it to be hidden from the inspection by 5 inspectors that should have made a bad inspection terrible if known.

Corrupt and useless.

Tried to submit a form. The website kept giving an error. Contacted ICO via chat and they were rude and it felt like they were not reading what I was saying at all. The agent kept sending short and inadequate replies, then told me to have a nice day mid-conversation.

Called about raising a complaint against a company that has breached my data and despite me calling numerous times to register the complaint and chase up a response the ICO stated I need a paper trail and should go back to the organisation that has not replied to these requests for a written response and ask the for a written response to take back to the ICO muppetry at its best

I raised a complaint to the ICO asking for them to confirm that a data breach had occured and what type of data breach / which part of the law related to this.

The organisation who breached my data had already admitted the data breach in writing and reported themselves to the ICO and put improvements in place. Howevr once I asked for compensation the organisation engaged an aggressive solicitor to defend them and deny their responsibility.

The ICO apparently looked into my complaint, and wrote me a letter whch stated very little and which did not answer my question as to whether a data breach had occured or not, just that they were satisfied with the actions of the organisation.

The ICO clearly discussed the sitaution with the organisation concerned's solicitor. The organisations solicitor waited until the exact date of the ICO's response to reply to me. Their reply denied any data breach and relied upon the ICO's response to proove this.

The whole situation was a total set up. The ICO is not objective or impartial. It appears to site with organisations and I am not sure what the poinf of them is. Their website states what should and should not happen and describes aspects of the law. Yet those working for the ICO appear to be unaware of the actual data protection legislation. It is totaly pointless. I now have to go to the ombudsman and my MP.

Corrupt? I don t know but think so.

I had an open`n`shut case of a letting agent deleting ALL my data when I raised an SAR to get my data. ICO investigated, and the agent then lied to them (and me),breaching yet more GDPR rules. ICO scheduled a magistrates court hearing(which was postponed twice).
The day before the third hearing, the agent met with ICO, the outcome being that the agent pleaded guilty, ICO gave a caution and dropped the court hearing.

Reasons:
a. `1st offence. The 1st offence option is for minor breaches not deliberate malicious deletion of data when requested via an SAR.
b. `Not in the public interest`. It certainly is as the agent knowingly, intentionally and deliberately deleted my data. I have my strong suspicions as to why which I told ICO. The public should know that the agent has contempt for the law.
`LET OTHERS BEWARE` JUSTIFIES THE COURT CASE.

Not only has the agent escaped a criminal record, I have been denied substantive compensation.

I appealed, within a couple of days the review (no appeal facility) said everything was done correctly. So Quickly???

The meeting was the equivalent of a court case where the defence had free reign to put their case whilst I, the victim, was not allowed to attend to present my prosecution case. ICO totally and deliberately ignored me, the victim. Justice? A total travesty of justice.

A millionaire businessman gets away with a minor slap on the wrist while I, a pensioner, get no justice, no compensation.

Trying to call and just cutting off the public now, but verified their payments team answered instantly 🤮

Another con!
I've just paid them £40 to avoid a fine only to be informed that they won't provide me an invoice!
Why do we conform to these ridiculous scams!!

A pathetic money grab by a useless organisation.
why should i pay money to not break a law?

If you are a member of public and you have been given live threatening medication TWICE from the NHS.

Clear breaches of data protection with with misuse of your personal data. Clearly.

The ICO carry on letting these Doctors commit murder and can carry on doing it to others or passing on Cancer, heart and stroke deaths as Covid. These doctors get a bonus for this to get waiting times down. Or cancer waiting times down ect or don't have to pay money to treat people. This is all because of money. Disgusting...

I'm still alive and avoided death from the NHS to tell my story. The ICO are allowing BENT DOCTORS WHO GET BONUSES FOR KILLING PEOPLE. OR COVING UP PEOPLE'S MEDICAL DETAILS AND REPORTS WHICH I HAVE CLEAR PROOF OF IN MY CASE.

Be careful with what medicine Doctors give you. They get a bonus for handing out some medicines. Seriously.

There are hardly any good doctors left in this BENT SECRET FASCISM NHS anymore. All wanting a bonus in there pay packets so the nhs don't spend money on helping people. DEMOCRACY (7.5 million people waiting for treatment in England). OR BEING KILLED.

WHEN SOMETHING GOES WRONG AND YOU MAKE COMPLAINTS. THE NHS TRY KILLING YOU AND TURNS TO FASCISM. NO JOKE. SECRETS OF MESSING WITH YOUR MEDICAL FILES WITHOUT TELLING YOU. LATER ON YOU FIND OUT BECAUSE I HAVE THE FULL REPORTS AND MRI IMAGES. MISSING INFORMATION ON DIAGNOSIS Sheets LATER ON.

Different doctors can't care for you properly because medical information is missing...

THE PENTAGON IN AMERICA DO THE SAME WHEN THREATHING PEOPLE OR WITNESSES. IT'S A CRIME

HERE IN ENGLAND. MURDER OR ATTEMPT OF MURDER IS A CRIME. DOCTORS ARE TOLD AND TRAINED IN A WAY WHICH IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE ANYMORE.

SOME DOCTORS ARE HUMAN. YOU WONDER WHY ALOT OF THE GOOD DOCTOR LEFT THE NHS.

IF A NEW DOCTOR WON'T LOOK AT YOUR MEDICAL Records THAT YOU HAVE AND ARE MISSING. CHANGE TO SOMEWHERE ELSE STRAIGHT AWAY. IF THE PRACTICE IS RELUCTANT ON GIVING YOU YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS. SOMETHING IS DODGY AND THE MEDICAL RECORDS ARE LEGALLY YOURS...

MAKE SURE WHEN GETTING MEDICAL RECORDS THAT THEY ARE FULL REPORTS AND NOT SHADDY REPORTS WITH WRITTEN BY THE GP. FOR EXAMPLE. A FULL MRI SCAN REPORT. NOT A SHADDY GP REPORT.

DONT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THE ICO. THEY JUST LET IT CONTINUE.

ONE RULE FOR DEMOCRACY UNTIL SOMETHING GOES WRONG.

IM NOT JOKING...

So interesting to see how Nigel Farage managed to expose his Coutts/NatWest experience and how swiftly he got results! For the majority of us who are just ordinary citizens without any claim to fame, we appear to be at the mercy of gross incompetence on the part of the the ICO, clearly illustrated by Trustpilot summary 97% "BAD" 1*/5. We note that Elizabeth Denham, at the time earning more than the PM, directed the ICO for 5 years without even having a legal qualification! Now since 18 months under John Edward, previously Information Commissioner Data Protection New Zealand, we see again, judging by the reviews, that little has changed. However, what is amazing is how many Culture Secretaries there have been in the last few years, apparently10 since 2010, who clearly have done absolutely nothing to improve either the organisation or it’s service. Nadine Dorries, who replaced Oliver Dowden, in 2021-22, has recently joined the Daily Mail staff and obviously thinks we are more interested to read about her childhood rather than why she, amongst others, failed to report or note the obvious inadequacies/low ratings of the Data Protection Regulator-ICO to Parliament, which is a part of DCMS duties/responsibilities.
It seems somewhat useless to have an organisation supposedly governed by laws/regulations, whereby in reality we continue to blatantly see, that for the most part judgement is always in favour of the organisations and not for the helpless individual…..myself included!
……….Well at the end of the day I suppose we can’t all be called Nigel Farage…….however it remains to be seen as to how long it will be before we actually have a Culture Secretary who is prepared to finally do something about this totally unacceptable and deplorable situation.
July 2023

Every single data breach, I have bought to the attention of the ICO, with evidence even ones admitted by a company that they have breached my data and failed to comply with the Data Protection act and evidenced, is never dealt with by the ICO. What is the point of them? I have training in GDPR and know the Data Protection Act. The ICO appear to not know it.

Can you imagine if we all didn't do our job? We wouldn't get paid. Why are the ICO any different? Misconduct in a public office comes to mind and nonfeasance behaviour.

The organisation I complained about broke the law by ignoring an erasure request and then, based on evidence (which I supplied to the ICO), knowingly provided an untrue reason as the 'purpose of processing' for refusing to comply with the erasure request. The organisation made further untrue claims that the ICO allowed without any scrunity and without requesting evidence.

The decision by the ICO was that the organisation had abided by the principles of the law.

The ICO's outcome is absolute rubbish becase:

1. The law states that the organisation must provide a response to requests under GDPR within 1 calendar month. I didn't receive a response until 8 months later, and only received a response after the ICO contacted the organisation. By not responding within the statutory time period is in breach of the law.
2. If an organisation provides a dishonest reason as the purpose of processing, that is in breach of Article 15(1a).

Breaching = breaking the law, and to break the law is not abiding by the principles of the law. The ICO was provided with very compelling evidence that would leave no doubt that the organisation had broken the law.

Afterwards, I asked the ICO:

"if an organisation provides untrue reasons for purpose of processing data, please could the ICO explain to me how this is abiding by the law?"

The ICO reused to answer the question.

After seeking a review of my complaint, this is what I was advised:

"The legislation obliges us to investigate to what is, in our view, an appropriate extent, and to provide you with an outcome."

Note: only have to provide an outcome.

I was also advised that the ICO does not forensically look at the evidence and the ICO's outcome is not a legal judgement - therefore, it has no legal relevance at all.

Like many others, based on comments I've read, I was also advised by the ICO to seek legal advice, which makes me wonder what is the point of the ICO?

Many companies/organisations fully abide by data laws but still have to pay the ICO a subscriptions, yet no action is taken against many companies/organisations that flour the law. Based on my research, it appears that the ICO only takes action against the big companies where they can issues fines in the £millions. Make of it as you will!

The ICO is not fit for purpose and should be abolished.

If you removed the dead wood from this tree, the only thing left would be the space.
That space would be of infinitely more use than the ICO.