Information Commissioner's Office Opiniões 510

Raised a complaint about two search engines. After over 3-4 months finally got a reply.
Very poorly written and didn’t deal with issues raised. The 2nd compliant was a copy of the first, the name of the search engine was not replaced from first complaint.

Very poor and not fit for purpose

Goodness another official money making scam. Absolutely disgusting just like ISO 9001 which is way too expensive. Fleecing businesses every which way they can. Threatening letter that if you don't register you could get 4000 fine is appaling tactics. Typical of Government heavy handed in fleecing citizens while they cannot justify what they do with all the money they collect.

Let’s be clear the ICO data protection fee is not regulation it’s a legally enforced scam. A mandatory £52+ “fee” slapped on millions of UK businesses with
zero benefit
no service, and
no measurable impact on data protection.

You get absolutely nothing in return. No audit, no support, no certification, no help line that gives real answers. Just a threat: “Pay us or we’ll fine you.” That’s not regulation — that’s COMPLIANCE BLACKMAIL!

They say the fee is required if you “process personal data” — and legally, they’re right. The problem isn’t the lack of definition — it’s that the definition is so absurdly broad, it now includes nearly every normal business interaction. Under UK GDPR Article 4, “processing” includes collecting, viewing, forwarding, or even deleting someone’s name — so if a customer messages you once and you read it, boom, you’ve "processed data" and owe the ICO £52 a year for life. It’s a deliberately overreaching definition, twisted into a regulatory cash grab. As a business owner, if I ask someone their name and email to help them — by their logic, I’m now a data controller who must fund their bureaucracy.

Even worse, how exactly is this money protecting anyone’s data? Where’s the evidence that your £52/year protects the public from anything? Where are the audits? The mandatory training? The enforcement of real cyber threats? The ICO is not proactively protecting anything, it’s sitting back and collecting revenue.

And let’s not forget: during a cost-of-living crisis, they raised the fee. Despite formal objections from businesses. Despite zero changes to their services. Just a cold, bureaucratic shrug and a reminder that they decide what’s fair. THEY DO NOT EVEN HAVE A PHONE LINE!!!

This isn’t oversight — this is empty compliance theatre. No proportionality. No fairness. No transparency.

Don't bother, I've had my data breached by Camden Council which put our life at risk. The ICO don't even know the GDPR laws or guidelines and will send you an automated message, then will close your case. They wont even look at your case, evidence etc.
Shut it down and save some money. Its easier to make a small claim in court.

A Cry that Faithless Wardens be Rended from Power

O mighty Keeper of the Truth’s proud flame,
Thou wear’st the badge, yet act’st to shame thy name.
I warned thee well of danger grave and deep,
Yet deaf thou stood’st, and let the wounded weep.

My protests foiled by thine own hand,
Your ease preferred to justice’ stand.
O irony! This mockery of lofty law!
In stead of sword that strikes, the toothless saw.

O shameful farce, where justice should preside,
A hollow throne where rot and evil hide.
The weakest suffer for thy slothful hand,
Can conscience dwell where such foul acts stand?

If angels weep at mortal law’s decay,
They weep for ICO, grown grey.

From the outset I warned the ICO that such a large, complex, and technical case required a holistic, thorough, and dedicated team approach. I also explained the importance: the longer autistic people were denied information about certain restricted NHS assessments, the longer they might lack correct diagnoses and support, increasing the risk of serious harm.

Despite catastrophic errors from the start, the ICO continued to refuse my requests for an approach that was fit-for-purpose, so all my appeals failed. This reinforced the feeling of victimisation I was already suffering from the NHS.

The Case Officer only assessed those review-requests I submitted to the NHS, ignoring those I had submitted to the ICO after the NHS refused further contact. So, their first decision omitted half my appeal items; the second omitted them all. After acknowledging these oversights, the ICO denied their significance by making excuses on the NHS’s behalf that contradicted their own guidance.

In my other five appeals, the ICO clearly did not consult my evidence as they referred to one of my documents as if it were a database query and they treated the private NHS subcontractor as if it were a public authority capable of answering FOI requests directly. The result was inevitable bias in favour of the NHS.

Although I informed the ICO of my mental disabilities from the start, they persistently failed to meet my requests for reasonable adjustments. Their process was so distressing I could not continue with my outstanding appeals or escalate the rest to tribunal.

When I attempted to complain, the responsible Group Manager repeatedly intercepted my emails and dismissed them without meaningful explanation.

Documents later released by the PHSO confirmed that the ICO’s failure to secure crucial evidence for me had enabled the PHSO to overlook these, undermining my complaint about my autism assessment and my complaint about the way the NHS treated me personally when responding to my requests for information. The poem tries to convey the betrayal I feel.

I am utterly disgusted with the recent increase in ICO fees. As the owner of a small business, I receive nothing in return for this charge, yet the cost has been raised by a huge margin with no consideration for the impact on small companies.

This is a fee imposed at a time when businesses are already under severe economic pressure. To raise it so steeply now is outrageous, unethical, and unfair. It feels like yet another example of government taking advantage of those who are simply trying to survive and grow.

I have read the ICO’s justification, and it changes nothing. Acknowledging the impact on small businesses is meaningless if nothing is done to ease that burden. This increase is indefensible, and I will never accept it as reasonable.

The ICO's own existence is pretty much close to pointless. Spied on for months on end, Police does not consider the use of a CCTV camera as harassment (despite the fact that I feel scared, distressed and threatened and covered under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997). the ICO can ONLY write to the offenders with guidelines. If the problem isn't resolved, the ICO recommendation is to take my neighbour to court, at my expenses of course. Another example of honest decent citizens abiding by the law caught between a rock and a hard place with no help!

TV Licensing 2.0.

Dreadful experience - almost threatening in its tone.

I received an automated email on February 19 2025 confirming my complaint had been lodged with an estimated lead time of 16 weeks before it would be looked at. I emailed again on 7 August having heard nothing. I received an automated email acknowledging receipt but still nothing. What has happened to this organisation? Is anyone working there? How and why are they allowed to be like this? Who is responsible? Because this organisation does not seem to operate in any way, it means that any individual or organisation can misuse your data unlawfully without any consequence whatsoever.

I've reported 2 separate issues to the ICO, one of which left me seriously ill as a result. I have yet to receive any correspondence from them. It has been over 6 months since my first report, and over 2 since my second and more serious report.
As far as I'm concerned the ICO exist in name only.

Dear Charity Commission,
I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding the conduct of Stanley Community Centre, which I understand is a registered charity. I believe their actions may constitute a breach of both data protection laws and human rights principles.
It has come to my attention that individuals affiliated with this centre—including service users and potentially staff—have been encouraged to take photographs of me without my consent. These images have reportedly been shared with others, including individuals outside the centre’s immediate community, with the intent to incite harm or harassment against me.
This behaviour is not only morally reprehensible but may also violate:
UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 regarding the unlawful collection, processing, and dissemination of personal data (i.e., photographs).
Human Rights Act 1998 – particularly Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 3 (Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
Charity Governance Standards – which require charities to operate with integrity, accountability, and in the public interest.
I strongly urge the Commission to investigate this matter and consider whether Stanley Community Centre is acting in accordance with its charitable objectives and legal obligations. I am prepared to provide further evidence and documentation if required.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise on the next steps.

Yours sincerely

Called the ICO Helpline for help with a question I had on data protection. Whilst the answer I was given was clear and factual, I don’t think I will ever again call them for help because of the way I was spoken to. The ICO staff member was very abrupt and I had the impression that they really resented speaking to the public.

Utterly Shocking Negligence by the ICO – Breach of Duty and Public Trust

I am appalled by the disgraceful lack of action and transparency by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Over the past several months, I have submitted multiple complaints relating to serious breaches of data protection and privacy law — yet I have received no response, no updates, and no accountability.

They claim that there is a backlog of 20+ weeks, but my case has now far exceeded even that excuse. This is not a delay — this is dereliction of statutory duty.

The ICO is legally obligated under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 to:

Provide timely and reasonable updates to data subjects (Article 12(3) UK GDPR),

Investigate complaints “without undue delay,”

Uphold the rights of the individual under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy),

And act transparently in accordance with the public body code of conduct.

By failing to respond in a reasonable timeframe or even acknowledge valid and lawful complaints, the ICO is:

In breach of Article 12(3) UK GDPR (timely communication with the data subject),

In breach of their role under Section 165 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (requirement to respond to complaints),

Violating the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) of the GDPR.

This is especially disturbing given the ICO’s public role as the UK’s independent authority to uphold information rights. They are failing the very people they were designed to protect — and in doing so, are enabling corporations and institutions to abuse data rights without consequence.

This has caused me significant stress, frustration, and delay in resolving ongoing legal disputes — and undermines any trust the public should have in this regulatory body.

If the ICO cannot fulfill its core function, it is not merely incompetent — it is complicit in the erosion of data rights in this country.

I demand a full investigation into this misconduct and urge others affected by ICO negligence to escalate complaints to their MP, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and — where applicable — initiate legal remedy under administrative law.

This is not just a delay — this is systemic failure and public betrayal.

I submitted a formal complaint to the ICO with strong, well-documented evidence showing that a third party had likely breached data protection obligations. At first, I received a clear and supportive response acknowledging the issue. But after my case was reassigned, things went downhill quickly.

The ICO case person did not engage with the evidence I provided. Each new response seemed to sidestep the substance of my complaint, while gradually downplaying the ICO’s role — as if to lower my expectations and nudge me toward giving up.

Instead of providing clarity or support, they now advise me to seek help elsewhere — which is frustrating, considering their legal mandate to protect data rights in the UK.

Been passed from pillow to post over the issues I am having with a neighbour who is harassing me and invading my privacy using CCTV footage on me and my property. I have evidence to proof what they're doing and my neighbour is breaking the law. I rung up 101 for advice, they told me the council is best. Spoke to the council, they advised me to use this company. I was given a number, soon as you ring it. You're immediately cut off. I then tried the online chat, explained my issues. I was then told they don't deal with the issues I am having. Told me to ring up 101, I explained I have already done this. They didn't even ask me on what my issues are. Within seconds of me sending my reply via their live chat. The agent cut the chat and closed it. Absolutely ridiculous and rude. This company is waste of time. Avoid it! I will have to find someone else to help me

Absolute shameful organization, that claims it can help - but never does. When the GDPR came into place it infected every organisation to comply - or else. It made Companies' processes a misery and people handling data lives hell, HOWEVER - when you exercise your GDPR rights - it is all a dead end. ICO should be closed down as an absolute waste of space entity. SHAME on all of you who work at the ICO an utter embarrassment to humanity. After 3 serious accounts of data breaches the ICO did absolutely nothing.

They’re absolutely biased so I don’t know why they always claim to not take sides because they absolutely do. How? They provided all my evidence and complaint details to the organisation and when I requested their response they refused and their excuse — they need organisations to trust them.

“The disclosure of a third party organisation’s correspondence provided to the ICO
in confidence would affect organisations’ trust and confidence that their replies to the ICO’s enquiries will be afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality.

Disclosure in this instance would therefore prejudice the ICO’s regulatory
function, as this would result in organisations being unwilling to engage with the
ICO or co-operate with our investigations in future.”

If that’s true they don’t have much power so what’s the purpose? They even ignore multiple breaches that had plenty of evidence and all they say is go to court instead so what even is the point of the ICO?

If you can’t afford legal action and the ICO won’t act what protection do you really have? None. That’s the problem.

Its as bad as a scam company. They are so bad its hard to believe they are not a Nigerian call centre running a spoof. There is no way of contacting them, they charge but don't send an invoice nor how much and they don't even say how they took payment. They make HMRC look good!!

On the Guido Fawkes site.

Civil servants at the Information Commissioner’s Office have truly mastered the art of turning work hours into staff network social time. According to an FOI request from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, seen by Guido, between April 2024 and March 2025, ICO pen-pushers clocked up a total of 8 hours over 10 meetings in “Inclusion” staff network meetings. Meanwhile, the “Pride” network soaked up 11 hours across 14 meetings. A further 10 hours over 14 meetings were dedicated to “Race, Ethnicity, Culture, and Heritage” discussions. Naturally all during working hours…

Some more notable events include:

‘Got Skills: Get into running’
‘Got Skills: Allotment gardening and caring for houseplants’
‘Got Skills: Knitting for beginners and for better mental health’
‘Virtual menopause yoga’
‘Gender and Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting’

All of this ‘staff network’ time is backed by a taxpayer budget of £12,000. Time for that ‘bonfire’…