Information Commissioner's Office Bewertungen 

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.

Do not waste valuable time or air that you will never get back.

There communication is horrific

You barely get any responses to emails, & when you ask for updates on your cases, they simply dismiss you

If they ever do respond, they will NEVER support the person raising the complaint and alway send the same copy & paste responses to all complaints

The process they put people through with delays of over a year are truly awful and at the end of it, you get a piece of A4 paper, most of which is filled with generic information & one sentence which states " we consider the organisation did all they should"

Biased, & always in favour of the business, never supportive or in favour of the person raising the complaint, shocking delays in time frames, still relying on covid back logs, some 6 years since covid, terrible system for logging complaints.

An absolute waste of everyones time.

Doesn't actually enforce GDPR

I was stonewalled by a company for a subject access request. They refused to fulfil it and ignored all communication on the topic.

The ICO took months to even acknowledge the complaint, and then further months to start investigating. At which point they took everything the company said at face value despite evidence to the contrary. When challenged, the ICO refused to provide any evidence to back up their claims.

Toothless organisation that serves no purpose.

The ICO does not deserve any public funding, when organisations are in breach they do nothing but fob off with generic templated responses. They are not fit for purpose. Every penny given to this organisation is a penny wasted. They need to be stripped of all public funding.

absolutely useless. they should be shut down so we dont have to waste any time, resources and public money on such poor services

The ICO is fundamentally ineffective. They will cite a 40 (FORTY) week response time to complaints, even those that are likely to cause serious harm. They are then unlikely to properly read the complaint as made, instead looking for the quickest way to dismiss it and take no action. I think the message is clear that the ICO and the UK government couldn't care less about your data. Except perhaps when they want it for their own purposes.

I took Hacking and Paterson Management Services (HPMS) to Court to obtain my original call recordings to allow me to evidence HPMS altered a call recording to avoid a loss and have me pay the costs of their incompetence. After a 20 month battle during which HPMS identified a 3rd party called Oak Innovation as having possession and ownership of my call recordings the Court granted a Court Order against HPMS to provide me with my true original call recordings.

HPMS overcame the Court Order by substituting the recording with the same disputed as edited digital recordings and destroyed the metadata to prevent disclosure of the fact the original call recordings were not provided.

Not knowing what a 'Recordx', the call recording program HPMS uses, original call recording is I asked for ICO help. I was told the ICO don't get involved with complaints which have reached Court and I should persuade the Court I had not received my original call recordings.

After the Court dismissed my complaint the ICO informed me I could find a demonstration video of 'Recordx' on YouTube under the search 'Introduction to Oak Call Recorder' and suggested I take my complaint back to court.

The ICO ignored the availability and integrity breaches HPMS deception created. I challenged staff on the helpline to enforce the reporting of the data breaches only to be told there is no such thing as availability and integrity breaches, only data breaches. What idiots.

Tucked away at GDPR Article 94 is confirmation European Data Protection Board guidelines remain applicable to UK GDPR. ICO staff are not aware that data subjects have rights. Everything ICO staff need to understand individuals data rights can be found in European Data protection Board Guidelines 01/2022 Right of Access . ICO actions instead endorsed HPMS Human Rights abuse of my right of access to my personal data. My right of access is a fundamental right which is protected by ECHR Article 8.

This organisation is not fit for purpose and is the next Post Office scandal. GDPR gave the Information Commissioner the power and authority to ensure Controllers complied with individuals data rights and the ICO immediately abuses that authority putting burden of proof onto the data subject.

Anyone struggling with call recording issues, the Court of Justice of the European Union Case Law C-487/21 provided confirmation of what obtaining a copy of personal data in terms of Article 15(3) of the GDPR. In terms of my call recording it needs to faithful, that is provided without undue delay and within one month in any case. My recording was provided 225 days after being located and me making my SAR which automatically disqualifies the recording as being a lawfully recognised copy. It must have the characteristics (metadata in the case of an MP3 file) to qualify as a copy which it did not. Will Shepherd informed me I have no right to the metadata Luke Wilson informed me the ICO can't comment on how to validate a recording after they removed the only method of validation. These two should not be working at the ICO in any other role other than the car park attendant.

Court of Justice of the European Union Case law C-340/21 paragraph 52 confirms GDPR Article 5(1) puts the burden of proof on the Controller but sadly the ICO staff are not aware of this either.

My complaint is now with the PHSO after which, as I reside in Europe, the EDPB will need to resolve this if the ICO continue to refuse to administer GDPR correctly.

GDPR is fit for purpose, sadly the ICO is not.

UK's top data and AI regulator quits after 'inappropriate' humour

Top dog gone, when is this incompetent quango going to be shut down.

Liv McMahon
Technology reporter

Published
19 June 2026

John Edwards, the UK's information commissioner, has resigned following a workplace investigation.

"I have accepted that there have been occasions where I exercised poor judgement and made attempts at humour that were inappropriate and caused offence," he said in a statement on Friday.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is responsible for regulating AI in the UK and also oversees data protection regulation and the freedom of information law.

Science Secretary Liz Kendall said she had "seen evidence of the vulgar and highly sexualised language that was used in his interactions with his staff and am extremely concerned that he continues to describe these incidents as misplaced humour".

In a post on the networking site LinkedIn,, external she wrote: "Multiple women shared testimony to the investigator on feeling offended, shocked and uncomfortable following interactions with Mr Edwards.

Publicly funded body but unless you can demonstrate significant harm (ie royalty or in the public eye) they hide behind their investigation guidelines and refuse to even look at it.

Their position is well known and encourages organisations to breach data protection without fear or consequences.

We may as well through GDPR in the bin if the body responsible for enforcing it openly says they will only look into the biggest breaches.

Very poor service yet again as with all our other Quangos. In my honest opinion, the ICO should be completely defunded.

You don't need to go past their website to see that they decide what is "harm" and they decide to act on whether they will take action. It seems like you do all the work, assemble all your evidence to be given the brush off. Honestly I don't see the point of this waste of space.

Total waste of time, no power over major corporations because they are bought and paid for. I have an outstanding SAR from a pension company which i need the data for but they are fobbing me off so the 3 month judicial review will time out. ICO says 'sorry cant help you'.........then when do they actually help ?

My personal data is very clearly being misused by an organisation. I've made several complaints to them, but they've all gone unheeded. I just want them to stop. Just stop. I made a report to the ICO, and they advised that they were not going to undertake a more detailed review because they haven't identified a broader data protection concern. What on earth is the point of this body if it wantonly refuses to engage in the activities it was set up to engage in? A horrific waste of taxpayer money.

Had a company ignore my data subject access request for over a year. Went to the ICO. Took 10 months to reply. They told the company to respond. The company still don’t respond. Went back to ICO, they said there’s nothing they can do, so what’s the point of them?

I want to write for ICO help, but reading the reviews and going on the website and reading carefully, they say they screen and dismiss most requests they deem not serious, and if you want a case officer, you wait 40 weeks? What do the staff do O yes there public sector quango, so nothing!!

Ineffectual and useless. They appear to only act on a fraction of complaints and practise heavy deflection and redirection, advising people to pursue their own legal action via the courts, making them pretty pointless as an entity.

Weaponised incompetence in action.
They take up to 2 years to respond to complaints then send you a template letter saying it's been so long since you complained you probably dont want to pursue it so they won't bother investigating.

Shut down this useless, pointless waste of space.

I contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the Council’s handling of a Subject Access Request and subsequent internal review concerning safeguarding and ASB Case Review records relating to me.

Following the Council’s response, I submitted a detailed internal review request identifying specific categories of personal data that appeared to be missing, including safeguarding governance records, screening decisions, and records associated with a statutory ASB Case Review process. The internal review was acknowledged by the Council but, to my knowledge, no substantive review outcome was ever provided.

I complained to the ICO on the basis that important questions remained unresolved, including whether relevant records existed, whether further disclosure would be made, or whether any lawful basis was being relied upon to withhold information.

The ICO decided not to undertake an investigation and recorded the complaint for information purposes only.

My concern is not simply that the ICO reached a different conclusion to my own. Rather, it is that the process concluded without resolving the underlying issues or obtaining a clear answer regarding the status of the records requested. As a result, significant uncertainty remains regarding the handling of personal data connected to safeguarding and Community Safety processes affecting me.

I appreciate that the ICO must prioritise its resources and cannot investigate every complaint. However, from my perspective, the outcome illustrates the difficulty individuals face when seeking independent scrutiny of unresolved data access concerns involving public authorities.

This review reflects my personal experience of the ICO complaints process.

Live chat and phone calls not helpful! Not very professional and rude

They are not able to deal with traumatic brain injury with cognitive impairments or serverly mentally impaired ..abuse of authority and harassment