Information Commissioner's Office Bewertungen 

Paid by and Working for the gambling companies. Waste of time

This organisation is completely unfit for purpose, and it's a genuine, monumental scandal that millions from the public purse is spent in its ineffective operations.

I submitted a complaint to the I.C.O. against Lloyds Bank who failed to respond to a DSAR request - no surprise there, of course. The I.C.O. wrote to tell me that they had decided "NOT to undertake a more detailed investigation". I wasn't aware that they had undertaken an investigation of any description.
Since the passing of Rachel Reeves's infamous Leeds Reforms (and associated legislation) the I.C.O. has become even more supine in its response to Financial Services oppression than they were previously. QUITE AN ACHIEVEMENT YOU MIGHT THINK!

Among the useless public bodies, the ICO (along with the CCRC) is the most useless. They keep you waiting for many months and then... when you finally see their reply... they say "we have decided not to undertake a more detailed investigation". The reason? Because the public body you are complaining about is aware of the problem! Really?! They are aware, then no problem.
Do not waste your time with them, try something else

Don't help at useless

The ICO is the most useless organisation in the entire country. I’ve reported 10 cases to them - recruitment agencies withholding information in SARs, blatant violations of basic regulations—and the ICO basically flips you the middle finger! 'Deal with it yourself, take them to court if you have the cash, because we couldn't care less.' It’s complete lawlessness with them. Every single one of them should lose their job, and the ICO should shut down this pathetic circus. What are they even getting paid for? You’ve got a better chance of seeing a shooting star than getting any real action out of them

Extremely disappointing

My experience with the ICO has been incredibly frustrating. I provided evidence showing why repeatedly requesting further sensitive ID, including a passport, was excessive when other means of verifying my identity were available.

Despite this, reviewing officer, Nellie Chadwick-Smith, appeared to disregard the central evidence and simply repeated that organisations can request identification — completely missing the point that my complaint was about whether it was necessary and proportionate.

For a regulator responsible for protecting information rights, this lack of meaningful scrutiny is extremely worrying.

The ICO is a complete failure as a public body. They act like a shield for organisations that break data laws, not a regulator enforcing them. Their “investigations” are nothing more than automated template replies dressed up as decisions. They ignore evidence, avoid responsibility, and consistently side with whoever has the biggest legal department. Reporting to the ICO is like shouting into a void — pointless, frustrating, and guaranteed to achieve nothing. They are the definition of institutional incompetence.

I am not surprised at all the other negative reviews about ICO. They read very similar which shows a system of refusal to uphold data breach concerns.

I (female) was followed late at night, after 11pm, by a manager (male) of a local taproom which on that Friday was open until 1pm. The manager asked me a few times while chatting where I live. I declined giving him info, but when he was smoking out side and must have observed me walking home, he saw me walk into a certain road when going home,

Then on that night after 11pm he left his colleague in the taproom with customers and went ahead of me with the company bike which he usually takes the opposite direction during the DAY (not after 11pm).

When I saw him driving into the street I usually turned to, I kept walking another direction to throw him off my path. I then started video recording my walk. When I truned back to take the road I usually take, he drove past me with the bike again on his way back to the taproom.

I had a very strong suspicion he was trying to figure out where I lived.

I reported this with the video evidence to the taproom including the co-founder, just to receive an email back from the manager guy who followed me. This to me is a clear breach of data, passing on to the person suspected of following a femae late at night into a direction he normally doesn't have any business im.

I reported to the ICO that it is not right to pass on my email address to the guy,but the case worker who did not sign their name, did what many here describe, closed the case, nothing to see here, I can go to court and raise a complaint with ICO.

I had other incidences where ICO DID help with NHS issues on my file, and the case workers always signed with their names, but not this time. This also makes me think that the case worker might be male. Former health secretary Wes Streeting already confirmed medical misogyny. There is systemic misogyny in the Met Police, especially on the highest levels, and I won't be surprised with ICO as well.

I will follow the tipps of some of the others here who left reviews on ICO. It seems to be systemic.

Appalling to not have an issue that the email address of a female is passed on to the male manager who followed late at night.

I am now always rigged with camera like bikers are.

Absolute scam of a business fee. To pay to hold on to customers information - what a gift!

ICO does nothing for us just takes money and expects it every year. If you dont pay, you'll be threatened with a penalty, your information put on thier website businesses of none payers and it can effect your businesses credit rating.

We don't get anything for this service yet have to pay for the privilege of someone being in an office sending out letters.

Funnily enough we have to enter all of our information to pay!!

The ico is toothless and useless. America actually has better protection for people who suffer a data breech. If a UK company allows your data to be hacked, YOU not the company have to pay for protection at a cost of £340! (Cifa £30, experian £130, equifax £180)

As indicated by previous reviewers, ICO is obstructive and weak on both enforcement and customer service. They simply don't adequately consider a case in the round and may, in fact, be likely to compound any prior stress or inconvenience raised in respect of the original complaint.

It's complaints process is neither accessible nor fit for purpose.

If there were a rating below zero, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment.

A cosmetic body designed to absorb public anger—and money—and protect systemic corruption.

This institution has proven to be nothing more than a superficial, useless entity whose primary function is to absorb public frustration and project a deceptive image of regulatory oversight. In reality, it acts as a shield to protect systemic corruption within a broken judicial system.

With over a thousand employees, productivity remains virtually non-existent, as public resources are consumed by staff who prioritise bureaucratic delays and the invention of evasive, soothing rhetoric over actual duties.

The official metrics expose this regulatory farce and administrative bad faith: out of nearly 40,000 data protection complaints received last year, the watchdog issued only two fines and a mere five enforcement orders. The ICO has explicitly confirmed that unless an individual faces what they narrowly define as "significant harm," they will simply shuffle valid complaints into a digital filing cabinet for "information purposes only" without any investigation.

Using "third-party data protection" as a pretext to provide curated summaries and altered extracts instead of original, unadulterated records is a deliberate tactic to suppress evidence of gross violations and block the path to justice. When huge swathes of data breaches carry zero consequences, the law becomes optional, public trust is completely destroyed, and accountability is reduced to mere performance theatre

Dont waste your time its just a quango masquerading as a investigative agency . They take you through a process that they know beforehand will never resolve . used them few times , a state corporate patsy as all regulators in the UK are ,

Had my Information refused from a. Energy company whom had an agent sexually harass me so according to these clowns a denial of an access request and call transcripts is not something they deal with , how the hell do you people sleep at night. Disgusting.

It is clear this Organisation only exists as another 'stealth tax' on UK businesses that process data... e.g. all of them.

When it comes to enforcing clear statutory breaches, the ICO is woefully negligent and inadequate.

Despite having been presented with clear statutory breaches, that were received much later than the GDPR rules require, the ICO sent me a short letter explaning they will not be doing anything about it.

ABSOLUTELY FARCICAL.

Disinterested, poorly trained front-line call handlers clearly targeted on the number of calls answered, rather than the number of issues properly dealt with.

As this is a public body, I have now requested a Freedom of Information request into the handling of my complaint, who made the decision that went against best practice and also contacted several MP's and escalated a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman who are the ones the ICO allegedly report to.

The ICO in its current state is not fit for purpose and clearly just another means for the UK Govt to take another tax off businesses.

If the ICO cannot enforce GDPR non-compliance, then what exactly do they exist for? I think I've already answered that, to rinse businesses for more money.

Money paid for no good reason plus they send very aggressive emails. After reading the other reviews on here it is clear this organisation should be disbanded and all monies they have received should be repaid.

I approached the ICO expecting an independent regulator that would thoroughly investigate concerns about my personal data and help ensure that my information rights were respected.

The ICO states that it exists to "empower" members of the public, "uphold information rights", and "safeguard and empower people". It also says that it promotes transparency and protects individuals' information rights.

Unfortunately, my experience was very different.

My complaint concerned a Subject Access Request to a tenant referencing company. A landlord reference had clearly been obtained, validated and used during the referencing process, yet the substantive contents remained heavily redacted. The limited information eventually disclosed contained inaccuracies, which naturally raised concerns about the accuracy of the information that remained hidden.

The ICO ultimately accepted the company's position and closed the case.

What I found most disappointing was the process. Despite being told that the matter would receive further consideration and be allocated to a case officer, no one ever contacted me to discuss the issues, clarify concerns, or explore the evidence before the outcome was issued. The ICO later explained that there was no requirement for a case officer to speak to me before reaching a decision.

The ICO's final position was that it had considered the matter to the extent it considered appropriate and that the case was closed. It also stated that it would not provide any further response.

My difficulty with this is simple: the ICO concluded that it had not seen evidence of wider accuracy problems, yet the substantive information that could have confirmed or disproved those concerns remains redacted. As a data subject, I am left in the position of being unable to assess whether the undisclosed information is accurate while simultaneously being told there is insufficient evidence to question it.

The result is that I have less confidence in the practical protection offered by the complaints process than I did before I started it.

The ICO speaks about empowering individuals, protecting information rights and promoting transparency. My experience was of a regulator that closed the file without ever speaking to me and left substantial questions unanswered.

Yougov banned me at 25 pounds, half way to 50, I complained to ico that this was a breach of data protection, to say I must give my passport to earn the rest of the 25 to let me be able to earn 50, and complained yougov were ignoring my subject access request, because I wanted to know their data on me in case they banned me for a wrong reason. Ico said they would do nothing about it, and did not bother that I am being asked to give my passport to even have a chance of getting what I earned. Even sending a non descript response to my letter. I thought subject access requests were a right, and am surprised they can demand my passport if I want to earn the rest of the 50.

Why does the ICO even exist?!

Following a dispute with Currys I followed all steps necessary to acquire my information. I completed a Subject access request (SAR) gave them an extension etc. Nothing. I need this information as I know Currys hold proof that they owe me compensation.

I then followed all necessary steps to make a complaint to the ICO. It took TWO MONTHS to get a response.

That response was essentially "It's not a big enough issue for us to investigate"

So I can do nothing. Currys can break GDPR laws and nothing happens.