Information Commissioner's Office Recenzje 503

They are useless, they can't investigate anything even if you provide enough evidence.Three months ago I presented evidence and now after three mounths they ask me again to present the same evidence. If the Government changed the management of the ICO because all the people gave it a star, surely many of us would be happy. So don't be under the illusion that they are investigating, because they probably don't have enough knowledge of how they should be investigating. I would give zero stars, but I know it's not possible.😏😡

Complete disgrace!!!
I have made a complaint, after previously talking with one of their advisors, via chat helpline.
That advisor, plus a specialist employment licensing solicitor told me that my concerns are correct and I am fully entitled to register a Complaint.
After registering the Complaint, in their " professional " manner of work they said that : it is lawful for a Healthcare Agency to hold applicants' details, even applicants after waiting more than 10 weeks the compliance process withdraw the application.
These types of agencies earn their wages ,just because others are going to work.
They also said, that is normal for applicants to have their time wasted for unpaid training during " compliance " process.
So...in ICO 's wisdom if you want to work, and apply for a 0 hours contract with an Agency ( as newly relocated in an area) , you must submit details via social media, wait more than 10 weeks, pay yourself for DBS, waste 14 hours from your time for " training".
Then, seeing that " recruiters" take such a long time , you withdraw application because you found a much better job.
And ICO allows Agency to hold : Bank Statement for the last 9 months, passport, proofs of address and educational background, even you Do Not work for that agency.
I was Naive to believe ICO is professional.
They are far away from this.
And based on the reviews about " quality" of their work, it looks they are some kind of national embarrassment.

Yep. Pretty much agree with everything here. They are infuriatingly pointless. Absolute waste of oxygen. Will take up with my mp after the general election.

They don’t investigate complaints anymore thanks to the recent court ruling.

I made a data protection complaint
IC-287024-W9K2.
Clearly bullet pointing my complaints with evidence of concerns.

Only for the ICO to do nothing except request a sars which I had already done twice. Then closed the case.

What’s the point of this service if it no longer has to investigate complaints under law.

I would be lucky to be able to list every failing this drain on Taxpayers money has.

In the last few months I have raised a complaint, and it more or less states on submission, thanks for raising a complaint but we will not take any action other than chat nicely to the party you are complaining about.

On enquiry I am told no action will be taken unless it is a "big" issue and that the ICO has no statutory powers to issue or enforce fines, as these would be challenged in the court and struck down.

They therefore have to rely on the goodwill of the people being investigated to accept a fine.

Try complaining online doesn't work. If you are unlucky enough to get to raise a case you are asked for information you cannot possibly have and they take several months to even acknowledge the issue being raised.

So to get this I raised a SAR with the organization I am complaining about who then failed to meet the deadline or the content or share in a way I could access.

Back to ICO well that's fine they can do that. I questioned whether in fact the choice of delivery was not to the benefit of the data subject; to which the roundabout answer was not exactly you have to state you cannot access it and suggest an alternate which the processor/ controller has to agree is secure.

But isn't the data the property of the subject? Hah maybe in the EU pal!

Ok so when a company registered and trading in the UK breached UK data laws but says that their responsibility to a data offices overseas ?

We would not get involved you need to address your complaint to the overseas data protection referred to by the organization making the alleged breach.

Back to the ICO to ask what action if any had been taken during this time, none wheat received the information you could not possibly get so we haven't done anything further.
Ok so why have you dropped the second organization in the complaint, oh they said that they had answered you and that they were happy that they had complied. (paraphrasing)

Honestly they are up there with BT as organizations that should just be ceased

NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE
What is the point of this s completely useless organisation.
I have written to my MP to ask this question.
Even my GDPR Solicitor what deals with them daily called them useless and told me not you take anything they say or do as fact.

THEY ARE TAX PAYER FUNDED AND DO NOT EVEN BOTHER TO RESPOND TO TAX PAYERS ON HERE,
USELESS COMPLAIN to Your MP and link this page

This is a toothless tiger. I would only recommend going through their processes so you can say to a solicitor you have ticked that useless box. It is a fop of an organisation with very little to offer any members of the public. Their track record on human rights and rights of the child is woefully inadequate. It is not fit for purpose yet public money is being spent to support something that is simply broken.

Do you even exist? Not heard anything. Thought you were supposed to help things move along.

I had provided clear cut evidence an organisation held data on me from a third party. This organisation had lied and claimed they didn't. My case worker, Helen Scullion, asked the organisation if they had any. Unsurprisingly the organisation lied again, and despite a dated email supplied between them and another third party through a freedom of information request of that third party - referring to me, Helen - despite being provided with this evidence, decided this wasn't grounds to pursue further action, in direct contradiction of their policy stating "Where we have significant concerns about an organisation's ability to comply with the law, we can take regulatory action.", How blatantly lying about not possessing data, did not constitute "significant concerns about an organisations ability to comply with the law" is beyond me.

It also took two emails and a phone call for Helen to even bother explaining her botched reasoning, this after waiting nearly three months, and submitting pages worth of evidence for the ICO resulting in the ICO emailing the organisation, asking a question I'd already asked, and giving me a response I'd already been given.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Update, several months later I was fortunately able to win a court case against my employer due to the hardwork of a generous no-win/no-fee lawyer.

Had I not had this luck, my old employer would have financially crippled me. The ICO could easily identify wrong-doing and chose to sit by and let it happen. It's not just the fact they do nothing, it's that they waste so much of your time and energy before doing so.

Human beings have a great capacity for wrongdoing. It’s an attribute that is unique in the world of life. We can and do make things worse, voluntarily, with full knowledge of what we are doing (as well as accidentally, and carelessly, and in a manner that is wilfully blind). – Jordan B. Peterson 2018

A UK Government agency that has been created to make people believe there are regulations for businesses to comply with.

The reality is that large companies know this to be a toothless wonder and is the reason getting a Data Subject Access Request is something businesses take little to no attention of.

The legal Director of Experian, has deliberately ignored my rights to access the data they hold about myself, especially the FALSE data that was supplied via ScottishPower along with any communications regarding to dealing with this matter! Experian’s Legal Department have continually shown a complete disregard for any of the rules & regulations set out by industry regulated framework along with UK Law & Legislation in particular the criminal offence committed under The Theft Act 1968 Section 17 False Accounting. This is compounded by the fact the criminal offence has been committed against The Executor of the Estate that holds a Grant Of Probate as issued by The High Court.

Ico are aiding police forces and buisness to cover up data to protect them.they are against the general public and designed to collect your evidence,then they aid the organisation in a cover up.deliberately created after Birmingham 6 fiasco and corruption.

ALways demanding money off me for my CCTV system but never does anything to stop all the spam calls, texts and emails. Online portal is impossible to use, keeps rejecting the complaint forms and even the complaint form for an issue with the ICO will not send.

I wanted to complain about HP policy of forcing users to access the printers they have bought only via HP cloud services thereby gathering unnecessary user data and exposure to security risks. But you have to jump through so many hoops you just give up. It's obvious the public should be protected from this harvesting but the ico offers no resistance to global companies.

Heidi Moore, "Lead" case officer, has not upheld my complaint regarding non-conformity regarding a subject access request to my GP SURGERY. As a highly experienced former police detective I submitted a wealth of corroborative documentary evidence as proof of such.
I wonder what training or experience Ms. Moore has? Fair does, only took 3 months to receive a reply. Absolute joke organisation.

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!!!