Information Commissioner's Office Reviews 500

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 ICO has become irrelevant and outdated.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.

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.