Gramam Nightingale v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 93 (GRC)
Athanasios Kandias v Information Commissioner
24 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 944 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about how an organisation handled their data request. They then complained to a Tribunal when the Commissioner took too long to respond. The Tribunal said it couldn't help because it can only deal with problems with how the Commissioner *deals with* complaints, not the complaint itself. The case was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Application to the Tribunal under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) regarding a complaint to the Information Commissioner (IC).
- •Complaint concerned the handling of a subject access request by NHS Grampian (reference IC-277470-W3B8).
- •Applicant also made a separate application (EA/2024/0093/GDPR) concerning a complaint about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
- •The IC responded to the complaint after the Tribunal application was made.
- •Applicant challenged both the delay in responding to the complaint and the substantive outcome.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's powers under section 166 DPA are limited to procedural failings, not the merits of the complaint.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 166
Tribunal cannot review the substantive outcome of a complaint to the Commissioner; its role is limited to procedural aspects.
Killock v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241, R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2023] 1 WLR 1327, Cortes v Information Commissioner (UA-2023-001298-GDPA)
Outcomes
Proceedings struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.
No reasonable prospect of success due to the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the complaint, which had already been addressed by the Commissioner.