Information Commissioner's Office Opiniões 510

A national disgrace. The worst reviewed body in uk? Naturally they never respond here. Arrogant ,abusive lazy staff who seem to think they exist just to be paid (very well!) but not actually do anything.

If they were just incompetent and useless then ..well same as many public bodies . BUT they are worse. . ...they appear to me to actively obstruct complaints and conspire with large companies and public bodies to avoid GDPR compliance.

Most of the staff work at home and are unqualified. Astonishingly average..average!..salary is more than twice uk average. They also appear to be have very prejudiced employment practices...probably best not to apply if you are a white male.

Not fit for purpose..pointless ...cant even stop neighbour directly filming a child with special needs .....

Similar to the last reviewer's experience, Ms Flanagan & her cohorts display a lack of knowledge of the legislation they are supposed to represent. Ask for a review and it gets reviewed by another person at the same level of experience, i.e, not much. It's worth noting that we can complain about the ICO to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, but out of nearly 900 complaints about the ICO to them, how many have been successful? None. Not a single one. So this organisation exists as a non-accountable bunch of clueless admin clerks who have no interest in actually investigating any data breaches. Do yourselves a favour and don't even bother with these incompetent fools.

ICO reprimanded the organisation for a breach of regulation (delay in responding). Although correct, that was not my complaint. So, I have given them two stars for that initiative.

I appealed to Tribunal about an ICO decision* that wrongly upheld a Freedom of Information Request denial. ICO asked the Tribunal to strike out the appeal, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The case was not struck out. The Tribunal found that ICO neglected to follow its own guidance. Consequently, ICO failed to balance and explain reasoning regarding public interest versus the rights of the data subject (para20). The Tribunal also found ICO was “inappropriately dismissive” of the evidence presented (para21). The Tribunal overruled ICO’s decision** and the organisation provided the information accordingly.

Holders of public office should act solely in the public interest, be objective, accountable, open, honest and show leadership by actively promoting and robustly supporting the Seven Principles of Public Life*** and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs. The ICO is incompetent or worse.

It will be appreciated if ICO respond via Trustpilot to this review.

*Google case ref ‘IC-190532-H2H8’ for details.
**Google ‘find case law national archives’ – then on national archives webpage search for ‘UKFTT 843’.
*** House of Commons usefully endorse and explain the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’

The ICO are as bent as they come. They publish reams of information such as qualified and absolute exemptions and yet, when they are asked to produce the evidence of such, no reply. They also tend to find in favour against the complainant and as such, along with Ombudsmen services, it is a pointless waste of time applying to any of these people. They just don't do what they are supposed to and in my case were able to invoke a Tribunal rule to have my case struck out.

So much for s149 EQA 2010 and the advancement of equality matters for those who are allegedly given some sort of protection if those persons have "protected characteristics".

The ICO is an absolute disgrace and the PHSO just keep establishment principles in order.

If you are disabled and trying to find out why car insurance premiums have shot up, s43(2) FOIA allows for commercial interests to be withheld. This is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test and qualified exemption test. Did the ICO do either? Did my insurer do either? Did the ICO & my insurer have a EQA 2010 policy in place to deal with how they treat those with protected characteristics? The answer, after an FOIA request to the ICO was replied, is no.

I have no faith in the law. Just look at the clowns and ignorant people who make law in this country. None of the Ministers in place know anything about their portfolios. The result is this system which is stacked against individuals in this country.

Pay up and shut up is what companies want and the government and establishment will support that. This includes Tribunals, the legal system and courts which are not independent of government as they like to pretend. In the case of the GRC Tribunal where all ICO disputes end, they are told by Parliament what they can and cannot do...That's independence for you.

I made a FOI request through the NHS, for which was denied me access to public information held by the NHS, therefore, my complaint was forwarded to the ICO that refused to take any action…UK is a completely corrupted system, the ICO try to cover misconduct and abuse from other gov bodies…ENTIRELY DISGUSTING!!!

I had a clear data protection breach which was rejected and closed even after I called then and said there was inaccurate information they were told from the company. Not surprised there isn’t any good reviews of them on here. Do yourself a favour and just take your case to a solicitor to deal with it!

Absolutely incompetent, disrespectful and rude staff.

This seems to be a well established policy there.

in 20 yrs they have never invsetigated agodamn thing I have referred even in teh face of blatant breaches due to being blacklisted due to their racial prejudice.
NHS refused to correct my basic personal details, address, name etc and said it was a medical record, this is SWAST inBristol and the ICO said it is a breach of GDPR as they have a duty to recitfy immediately. they all protect each other. yet they get paid salaries to do a job but the truth is data protection does not exist. thera is no such thing. they have said they have not finalised yet it has been over a year,

What is the point . I've given up . Over the last few years I've realised there is no such thing as a data protection act .
What seems accurate is if you want your data on time , or at all there is absolutely no chance of getting it through the ICOs support . It's all a sham just like all the other regulators, policies and procedures .
CQC equally as disgraceful.as is the charity commissioner . . I'm sure if we could all give a no star rating most on here would .

Despite this being part of their policy, the council didn't respond in time to GDPR, withheld information, and didn't retain phone calls. The contacted ICO was assigned a casework officer he was essentially useless and said the ICO couldn't do anything, this is why organizations just do what they want with your data. ICO needs to be defunded as it's a waste of money.

I complained about my financial adviser who had a data breach that led to my and my daughter's identities being stolen, as well as money, emails, phone numbers, financial history. When I reported the breach I had less evidences than what I have today. But enough for them to say : it is likely your adviser had a breach. And then.... they close the case!!! Didn't give me a chance to add evidences. So the adviser has a laugh, says he won't investigate where the breach comes from, even refutes it despite the evidence, because he says "the ICO closed the case". I appealled​but the appeal was rejected,now it's going to my MP. ICO is partly funded by the government and partly by private companies. Some of these companies are the companies we complain against. So you tell me : how can the ICO be impartial? No wonder they let reckless companies victim of data breach get away with murder or rather get away with data breach. ICO has become irrelevant and outdated. Waste of tax payer money

I spent three months at "Hartley Hospital" earlier in 2023 detained under the "135 Mental health act"
Sadly this detention was based on a Mersey care "Psychiatrist" and "Hartley Hospital" in-house medical reports from which all reports content had been heavily contrived and fabricated!!
Ultimately this unfounded process came from a complaint I had made to the police in late 2019 in connection with some serious criminality and threats directed my way! The police showed an unusual disinterest but would not follow up my complaint although I'd had names / addresses / registration numbers...I felt I had stumbled on something "out of bounds" In my ignorance I attended a voluntary interview from recommendation by the police!? with the then "Hesketh Centre" psychiatrist, the interview was strained to say the least..the report which I requested several days later as I've suggested abundant with lies and a character assassination!!
Meanwhile having done masses of research on the let's say "Cyber crime" I'm still having serious issues with,.. earlier in 2023 made further complaints to the police...of course again produced nothing!
In early March 23 received a visit from Hartley associates with the detention order (it seems they were concerned about me) so the "draconian" detention was carried out!
I've pursued complaints with various legal departments and over the last several months ongoing..
I was recommended by the "Medical Ombudsman" to follow up the ICO for help..
Emails back and forth have produced nothing!! I do feel let down by the "system" more than ever now with the medical profession in the "Spotlight" as never before!
I remain "targeted"..my phones / PCs continuously hacked, ongoing email intrusions / password changes and much more and the far more serious "Cyber crime" I referred to is a very present and current threat..

I called to explain that BES utilities have images of my drivers license and business insurance stored on a WordPress site with publicly accessible links, along with countless others. It’s a massive data breach. ICO aren’t interested in investigating it.

In my opinion their guidance is unfair, they are biased towards big organisations and as such a complete waste of tax payers' money. Should be disbanded.

The website that listens when no one else will - or at least in my case. You can easily talk to someone on the phone and they will help you with a website that has no contact method and no way of deleting a profile. I found them to be very kind and professional.

Useless. I was dealing with Victoria and it was clear, after proving a company was withholding information about me as i was in Tribunal stage with a court date scheduled, that she would do nothing, over many weeks for even a reply.

Even with proof, ICO are useless and can only beg companies at best. Wish i had of read reviews before wasting my time

What's the point? They write back with the same generic bs. They defend the big companies and even when they agree with you they do nothing. They need to go!!!!

I'm so angry that this even exists without offering ANY protections to businesses! We are 'legally' obliged to pay this fee yet what do we get in return? i get so many calls from scammers wanting to take my hard earned money, but fortunately I'm wise to it. I've done everything i can to protect my contact data but as a small business i need to advertise my number. The irony is we are expected to pay £40 to an organisation that has zero powers or influence to protect me. Isnt that a scam in itself? I expect the organisation donated to the conservative party and the senior management are on extortionate salaries

Since Brexit they are utterly toothless, and pointless. ICO are reluctant to accept complaints and rarely act on them. This has been the case for long enough that marketers know this now, to the point that so many businesses are just ignoring their own privacy policies, knowing that there will be no comeback from the ICO if they abuse their customer's data for marketing.