Subject Acces Request - Refusal to disclose

[prophet01]

A few months ago I agreed to be a witness in respect of an investigation into allegations of bullying being undertaken by a specialist independent organisation appointed by a UK sports governing body.

The 2.5 hour long interview was conducted via zoom and recorded by the investigator as a record and to assist him in drafting a statement which he then proposes to send to me to "review, correct or expand in any way you wish, and return signed and dated to indicate you agree with the contents."

Now here's the thing. Today, the organisation rejected my request for a copy of the audio file on the following basis:
"Your data is inextricably linked with third party data. We do not have the consent of those third parties to disclose their personal data to you nor do we have consent to share the recording itself. Accordingly, we do not consider it reasonable under the circumstances to disclose this information.”

Setting aside the absurdity that the information concerning "third parties" came from my own lips, surely their excuse for withholding the information from me in audio format equally precludes them from sending the same information, as a statement for my review and acceptance, in written format. Quite bizarre.

I feel a complaint to the ICO coming on. If only to obtain clarification as to whether the organisation's interpretation and application of the DPA is reasonable.

 

[Newchodge]

I am not suggesting the OP ought not be provided with the recording but in any event the *facts* are presumably known and a statement now will rehash the facts. Why would the recording be required to restate the facts?

The statement is not about the facts. The OP will have to sign to say that the statement is an accurate reflection of what they said at interview. Subtle difference.

 

[Elliot Green]

The statement is not about the facts. The OP will have to sign to say that the statement is an accurate reflection of what they said at interview. Subtle difference.

On that basis the recording is plainly required. However I am not certain it is a DPA issue.

 

[dylanmarlais]

There's two separate things here 1) access to personal data 2) access to a recording. A recording is not necessarily personal data. People often think an SAR gives them the right to eg. all correspondence involving them. It doesn't. The data can be produced in alternative format.

This is not correct. If you want some Government guidance as authority, the guidance on videos includes the following about the GDPR:

“The Regulation isn’t just about written details, like names and addresses; it applies to any information that can identify someone. That includes pictures and videos.”

 

[Elliot Green]

This is not correct. If you want some Government guidance as authority, the guidance on videos includes the following about the GDPR:

“The Regulation isn’t just about written details, like names and addresses; it applies to any information that can identify someone. That includes pictures and videos.”

I accept that other material can identify someone other than written materials. However my point was it is "data" that is disclosable.

An SAR is an application for personal data; it is not an application for 'discloure' as in the case of adversarial proceedings.

The government guidance quoted is a bit vague and does not determine what it is that must be disclosed or the form in which it has to be disclosed.

Perhaps consider:

Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746 in the Court of Appeal at paragraph 26 when the following was said:

“It is not an entitlement to be provided with original or copy documents as such, but, as section 7(1)(c)(i) and 8(2) provide, with information constituting personal data in intelligible and permanent form. This may be in documentary form prepared for the purpose and/or where it is convenient in the form of copies of original documents redacted if necessary to remove matters that do not constitute personal data (and/or to protect the interests of other individuals under section 7(4) and (5) of the Act).” [my emphasis]

 

[dylanmarlais]

Look that the Government guidance on CCTV: “Anyone can ask to see images that you’ve recorded of them. Usually, you must usually provide the footage free of charge within 1 calendar month.”

And if we consider the dictum in Durant, then if you don’t get the video, you are entitled to a transcript.

 

[Elliot Green]

Look that the Government guidance on CCTV: “Anyone can ask to see images that you’ve recorded of them. Usually, you must usually provide the footage free of charge within 1 calendar month.”

And if we consider the dictum in Durant, then if you don’t get the video, you are entitled to a transcript.

This is not CCTV of say you parking your car. This is an interview so there will be a third party's images involved along with the data subject.
I am not seeking to defend the response from the organisation as I think the application of GDPR/DPA more generally can have unsatisfactory aspects. It was supposed to be a way of checking on a breach of your privacy but as is all too common, it is legislation that has mushroomed in its application.
Obviously, the whole thing as explained appears rather remarkable.
However, you can of course potentially appeal to the Information Tribunal about such matters. It would interesting to see how they might rule on the same.

 

[IanSuth]

Look that the Government guidance on CCTV: “Anyone can ask to see images that you’ve recorded of them. Usually, you must usually provide the footage free of charge within 1 calendar month.”

And if we consider the dictum in Durant, then if you don’t get the video, you are entitled to a transcript.

I once tried to get cctv footage of my motorcycle being knocked over and damaged in a town centre bike park directly under a council cctv camera - my request was denied as the footage contained images of the general public and those could not be given to me a member of the general public without all of their individual consents which was obviously impossible.

They also stated they did not have the time/money to review the footage themselves as it did not meet the threshold of a serious crime

 

[Elliot Green]

I once tried to get cctv footage of my motorcycle being knocked over and damaged in a town centre bike park directly under a council cctv camera - my request was denied as the footage contained images of the general public and those could not be given to me a member of the general public without all of their individual consents which was obviously impossible.

They also stated they did not have the time/money to review the footage themselves as it did not meet the threshold of a serious crime

This is appalling. You are given legal rights but when you want to rely on them exemptions are pleaded. How much could it cost to review two seconds of footage I wonder.

 

[IanSuth]

This is appalling. You are given legal rights but when you want to rely on them exemptions are pleaded. How much could it cost to review two seconds of footage I wonder.

I am aware of no one who has managed to get access to the recordings of various events in the town centre - they use it as a blanket excuse that basically "if the Police don't need it we won't provide it", in one case 4 bikes had their seats slashed and/or pushed over causing significant damage

I was 99% sure another bike had clipped it and knocked it over (smashing mirror, bar end weight, brake leaver and bending the front brake disk/cracking mudguard) - so c£300 of damage, exactly the amount not worth claiming for as after excess you get nothing but an increased premium. However if I could have seen the footage I would have just asked the owner (most bikes parked there were the same each day and i know the local bike garage mechanics as well who could have identified other bike owners)

 

[Newchodge]

I am aware of no one who has managed to get access to the recordings of various events in the town centre - they use it as a blanket excuse that basically "if the Police don't need it we won't provide it", in one case 4 bikes had their seats slashed and/or pushed over causing significant damage

I was 99% sure another bike had clipped it and knocked it over (smashing mirror, bar end weight, brake leaver and bending the front brake disk/cracking mudguard) - so c£300 of damage, exactly the amount not worth claiming for as after excess you get nothing but an increased premium. However if I could have seen the footage I would have just asked the owner (most bikes parked there were the same each day and i know the local bike garage mechanics as well who could have identified other bike owners)

But that is basic data protection. The police are entitled to request the CCTV images in order to inbestigate a crime. No one else is entitled to know what is on it, including the CCTV staff! And how anyobe could think it only takes 2 seconds to review the footage, even if you know the exact time it was done, it takes longer than that - if it happened at some point in a day, it could take more than a day to review.

 

[IanSuth]

But that is basic data protection. The police are entitled to request the CCTV images in order to inbestigate a crime. No one else is entitled to know what is on it, including the CCTV staff! And how anyobe could think it only takes 2 seconds to review the footage, even if you know the exact time it was done, it takes longer than that - if it happened at some point in a day, it could take more than a day to review.

Not true

Remember i have a wife who is a cctv tech support engineer - reviewing the footage could be done high speed timelapse initially (having been given a 1 hour window) that would take about 10 seconds as as soon as they see bike down you then replay the min beforehand at normal speed.

This is actually a town centre motorcycle park that you are required to park in and as such the council have a duty of care towards it's upkeep and security. All they had to do was say "we have reviewed and it was a pedestrian" and i would have left knowing there was nothing i could do, or "we have reviewed, the bike parked next to you appeared to have clipped it and it fell over" and I would have been able to chase myself.

The Police's only response was that it was a civil matter

 

[Newchodge]

Not true

Remember i have a wife who is a cctv tech support engineer - reviewing the footage could be done high speed timelapse initially (having been given a 1 hour window) that would take about 10 seconds as as soon as they see bike down you then replay the min beforehand at normal speed.

This is actually a town centre motorcycle park that you are required to park in and as such the council have a duty of care towards it's upkeep and security. All they had to do was say "we have reviewed and it was a pedestrian" and i would have left knowing there was nothing i could do, or "we have reviewed, the bike parked next to you appeared to have clipped it and it fell over" and I would have been able to chase myself.

The Police's only response was that it was a civil matter

Failure to report an accident s not a civil matter.

 

[Elliot Green]

But that is basic data protection. The police are entitled to request the CCTV images in order to inbestigate a crime. No one else is entitled to know what is on it, including the CCTV staff! And how anyobe could think it only takes 2 seconds to review the footage, even if you know the exact time it was done, it takes longer than that - if it happened at some point in a day, it could take more than a day to review.

Perhaps my misunderstanding but there are exemptions in the DPA that allow investigations. The right of someone to investigate crime I would hope ranks above privacy issues with safeguards put in place. A person can conceivably do their own investigations if the police do not take up matters. I assumed CCTV has times and dates in the recordings and if that is correct and if someone knows the time they were hit I would assume it would be easy enough to find relevant footage quickly. I might be wrong of course.

 

[Newchodge]

Perhaps my misunderstanding but there are exemptions in the DPA that allow investigations. The right of someone to investigate crime I would hope ranks above privacy issues that could in any event be protected. A person can conceivably do their own investigations if the police do not take up matters. I assumed CCTV has times and dates in the recordings and if that is correct and if someone knows the time they were hit I would assume it would be easy enough to find relevant footage quickly. I might be wrong of course.

I don't think anyone has the right to breach DPA in order to carry out their own investigation. Apart from anything else, how would you protect against a jealous spouse claiming their (spouse's) car had been hit and wanting to see the evidence to get proof they were having an affair? The police can, and other agencies that have legal enforcement powers, but no one else. CCTV would have times and dates on the footage but if you knew when it happened you would also know what happened.

 

[Elliot Green]

I don't think anyone has the right to breach DPA in order to carry out their own investigation. Apart from anything else, how would you protect against a jealous spouse claiming their (spouse's) car had been hit and wanting to see the evidence to get proof they were having an affair? The police can, and other agencies that have legal enforcement powers, but no one else. CCTV would have times and dates on the footage but if you knew when it happened you would also know what happened.

I would not refer to a breach of DPA. There are some exemptions as far as I am aware.

Some organisations will for example provide CCTV if you provide them with an indemnity for example.

You can bring a private prosecution in this country and that may entail seeking to undertake an investigation.

 

[IanSuth]

Failure to report an accident s not a civil matter.

Might have been a pedestrian which wouldnt count as an RTC or be a crime - Police wouldnt check to see. Also off road motorcycle parking is a grey area as to whether it is part of the highway

location was here - https://goo.gl/maps/hoqWFPEeU9LxeZ6y7 it fell onto the concrete plinth with the bin on top (actually the fill on the stairs to the old underground toilets) the CCTV cameras are on the mast with the grey bottom with red figures painted on it. You can see it is obviously council provided/mandated parking behind a double red line - i used to work in the office above the pub in the background which is why i knew roughly when it happened (suddenly saw it on side out of window)

 

[prophet01]

Whislt the discussion about CCTV personal data is very interesting — perhaps someone might like to start a new thread — this matter is not about video data it's about audio data, as stated in my opening post:

...Now here's the thing. Today, the organisation rejected my request for a copy of the audio file on the following basis:​

"Your data is inextricably linked with third party data. We do not have the consent of those third parties to disclose their personal data to you nor do we have consent to share the recording itself. Accordingly, we do not consider it reasonable under the circumstances to disclose this information.”​

​

Setting aside the absurdity that the information concerning "third parties" came from my own lips, surely their excuse for withholding the information from me in audio format equally precludes them from sending the same information, as a statement for my review and acceptance, in written format. Quite bizarre.​

​

 

[prophet01]

So, following the appointed investigating body's CEO's further refusal to provide the requested SAR information, i.e. a recording of my own voice, and failure to properly engage with me/answer my specific queries — contrary to the ICO's expectations of any organisation which I, helpfully, set out to him — I've now:

1. Submitted a complaint to the ICO
   
   
2. Written to the CEO stating, amongst other things, "I’ve decided to not only exercise my statutory entitlement to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority but, with great reluctance, to also exercise my statutory entitlement to judicial remedy.
   
   As such I would ask you to reconsider your decision to withhold the requested information and provide the same by Friday 14 July 2023.
   
   I shall, of course, seek to recover from you all costs associated with any such legal action."

...and on this saga trundles.

 

[prophet01]

Game on, apparently.

CEO's response:

"Our position remains as previously advised for the reasons provided. I note that you have decided to take the matter further."​

​

Our solicitor is drafting the requisite letter of claim.

 

[prophet01]

UPDATE:
Instead of issung a letter of claim to the investigatory body we decided to address this by going down the ICO complaint route.
[We have, though, issued a letter of claim to the sport club for failing to respond to our SAR requesting a copy of their purported personal data breach report to to the ICO - I'll explain after]

My complaint about the investigatory body's refusal to providea copy of my voice recorded interview was submitted on 5 August. Yesterday, following several reminders from me, I eventually received the ICO's response as per the below extract:

Having considered the information available in relation to this complaint, it is our view that Sport Resolutions has not complied with its data protection obligations. I will give the reasons below.​

​

1. The deadline for responding to a subject access request (SAR) is a calendar month from the day it was received by the organisation. Mr XXXX first requested copies of his personal information from Sport Resolutions on 5 April 2023. He subsequently received a response from yourselves on 9 May 2023.​

​

It is therefore our view, based on the information received, that an infringement of the legislation has happened in this instance.​

​

2. Information that Mr XXXX should be entitled to receive has been withheld from disclosure.​

​

Mr XXXX specifically requested a copy of a voice recording of an interview that he participated in. Voice recordings are generally considered people’s personal information under data protection legislation. It is therefore likely Mr XXXX should be able to access a copy of this interview.​

​

It is therefore our view, based on the information received, that a further infringement of the legislation has happened in this instance.​

The ICO then goes on to tell the invetigatory organisation's CEO:

Next step
We want you to review your response to Mr XXXX’s SAR. You should provide Mr XXXX with a response to your review no later than 14 days from the date of this letter.​

​

The DPA 2018 says you do not have to comply with a SAR if doing so means disclosing information which identifies another individual, and I note your response to Mr XXXX, which states that his personal data has been withheld on the grounds that it is “inextricably linked with third party data”. Please consider the following:​

​

1. you should reconsider your position about providing the data, as you should, if necessary, be able to provide it in redacted form, or,​

​

2. if redaction is not possible, consider the option of providing the data in an unredacted form, as Mr XXXX was present at the interview, and therefore any information about third-parties will already be known to him.​

​

Please refer to our website for guidance on the third-party exemption.​

​

Further action​

You should also take the below steps to improve your information rights practices.​

​

1. All staff attend mandatory training which is routinely tested and refreshed.​

​

2. All policies and procedures are updated and revised to reflect the new obligations placed on controllers and processors under the UK GDPR / DPA18.​

​

A resounding victory for me and a scathing indictment on the investigatory organisation's irrational and illegal behaviour.

I'll definitely be requesting evidence demonstrating their compliance with the ICO's further instruction that "all staff attend mandatory training" and all policies and procedures are updated..."

The SAR was submitte on 6 April. It's taken 6 months to get this far via this complaint procedure route. Absolute madness.

 

[Newchodge]

UPDATE:
Instead of issung a letter of claim to the investigatory body we decided to address this by going down the ICO complaint route.
[We have, though, issued a letter of claim to the sport club for failing to respond to our SAR requesting a copy of their purported personal data breach report to to the ICO - I'll explain after]

My complaint about the investigatory body's refusal to providea copy of my voice recorded interview was submitted on 5 August. Yesterday, following several reminders from me, I eventually received the ICO's response as per the below extract:

Having considered the information available in relation to this complaint, it is our view that Sport Resolutions has not complied with its data protection obligations. I will give the reasons below.​

​

1. The deadline for responding to a subject access request (SAR) is a calendar month from the day it was received by the organisation. Mr XXXX first requested copies of his personal information from Sport Resolutions on 5 April 2023. He subsequently received a response from yourselves on 9 May 2023.​

​

It is therefore our view, based on the information received, that an infringement of the legislation has happened in this instance.​

​

2. Information that Mr XXXX should be entitled to receive has been withheld from disclosure.​

​

Mr XXXX specifically requested a copy of a voice recording of an interview that he participated in. Voice recordings are generally considered people’s personal information under data protection legislation. It is therefore likely Mr XXXX should be able to access a copy of this interview.​

​

It is therefore our view, based on the information received, that a further infringement of the legislation has happened in this instance.​

The ICO then goes on to tell the invetigatory organisation's CEO:

Next step​

We want you to review your response to Mr XXXX’s SAR. You should provide Mr XXXX with a response to your review no later than 14 days from the date of this letter.​

​

The DPA 2018 says you do not have to comply with a SAR if doing so means disclosing information which identifies another individual, and I note your response to Mr XXXX, which states that his personal data has been withheld on the grounds that it is “inextricably linked with third party data”. Please consider the following:​

​

1. you should reconsider your position about providing the data, as you should, if necessary, be able to provide it in redacted form, or,​

​

2. if redaction is not possible, consider the option of providing the data in an unredacted form, as Mr XXXX was present at the interview, and therefore any information about third-parties will already be known to him.​

​

Please refer to our website for guidance on the third-party exemption.​

​

Further action​

You should also take the below steps to improve your information rights practices.​

​

1. All staff attend mandatory training which is routinely tested and refreshed.​

​

2. All policies and procedures are updated and revised to reflect the new obligations placed on controllers and processors under the UK GDPR / DPA18.​

​

A resounding victory for me and a scathing indictment on the investigatory organisation's irrational and illegal behaviour.

I'll definitely be requesting evidence demonstrating their compliance with the ICO's further instruction that "all staff attend mandatory training" and all policies and procedures are updated..."

The SAR was submitte on 6 April. It's taken 6 months to get this far via this complaint procedure route. Absolute madness.

Thanks for the update. Good luck with the fight.

 

[prophet01]

Thanks for the update. Good luck with the fight.

Cheers.
This is just another of the many battles we keep having to fight against corrupt individuals and organisations in our, thus far, three years long pursuit of justice in respect of wrongdoing perpetrated against us by the sport club.

 

[OldSmokey]

Cheers.
This is just another of the many battles we keep having to fight against corrupt individuals and organisations in our, thus far, three years long pursuit of justice in respect of wrongdoing perpetrated against us by the sport club.

Nice to see you are getting somewhere , there are too many directors and corrupt organisations who get away all sorts of unlawful things and nothing happens to them .

 

[IanSuth]

Nice to see you are getting somewhere , there are too many directors and corrupt organisations who get away all sorts of unlawful things and nothing happens to them .

And lots of them are sports clubs / special interest clubs run as petite fiefdoms by those who think they are exempt from the law/rules

 

[prophet01]

I did say, in the 'UPDATE' post above, "We have, though, issued a letter of claim to the sport club for failing to respond to our SAR requesting a copy of their purported personal data breach report to to the ICO - I'll explain after"

As I said on someonelse's thread, I know that many UKBF members have been following this saga now heading into its third year, so I'll shortly be starting a new thread to bring matters up to date, including the above litigation pre-cursor.

 

[Newchodge]

If that were the case, how come on a thread that you started in May which runs to over 70 posts, you first mentioned Sport Resolutions - on November 4th.

Can we get back to the topic of this thread, please.

 

[prophet01]

The ICO then goes on to tell the invetigatory organisation's CEO:

Next step
We want you to review your response to Mr XXXX’s SAR. You should provide Mr XXXX with a response to your review no later than 14 days from the date of this letter.

So, today is day 14 and no such response has been received thus far.

These boys sure know how to string matters out. Unless they've simply decided to ignore the ICO's instruction.

 

[fisicx]

Probably just ignoring the order. If the get a fine it will just be paid out of club funds to makes no difference to the persons involved.

 

[prophet01]

The instruction from the ICO is to the investigatory organisation, not the club.

 

[fisicx]

Apologies, but they will probably still just pay the fine if one is ever issued.

 

[IanSuth]

The instruction from the ICO is to the investigatory organisation, not the club.

You could ring the organisation and try the old "as today is the last day of the 14 days, can i just check all the ordered info has been posted to me or is it coming some other means ?"

See how they react

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Apologies, but they will probably still just pay the fine if one is ever issued.

The ICO can issue fines up to £17.5 million, but the question is whether they would do so against another established regulatory body?

This from the ICO website:
The ICO focuses the use of its enforcement powers on cases involving reckless or deliberate harms, and is therefore unlikely to take enforcement action against any organisation genuinely seeking to comply with the provisions of the legislation. Nor does it seek to penalise organisations where a member of staff has made a genuine mistake when acting in good faith and in the public interest; for example in an emergency situation, or to protect someone’s safety.

Whilst there's nothing within the above that relates directly to the situation in hand, further reading presents the ICO's position as one of a softly, softly approach.

 

[prophet01]

Next step
We want you to review your response to Mr XXXX’s SAR. You should provide Mr XXXX with a response to your review no later than 14 days from the date of this letter.

So, today is day 14 and no such response has been received thus far.

These boys sure know how to string matters out. Unless they've simply decided to ignore the ICO's instruction.

Day 14 was yesterday when, at 15:23, I received an email sent to both the ICO case officer, and me, from the investigatory body's 'Head of Case Management' who, from their website, appears to be the CEO's 'right hand woman', stating:

Dear Mr. ICO Lead Case Officer and Dear Mr. Me​

Please find attached a letter for your attention.​

Mr. Me – A separate e-mail will follow providing you with the access [to the voice interview recording] set out in the letter.​

Kind regards,​

Catherine XXXX, Head of Case Management.​

​

The attached three-page letter, addressed solely to the ICO lead case officer, was a rather pathetic attempt to justify their original stance which led to them being found guilty of breaching data protection legislation.

I wouldn't normally give as toss, however, not only is her pathetic attempt to justify their stance deliberately misleading — being riddled with wholly inaccurate statements designed to misportray the reality of matters — but it's drafted to enhance the credibility of their attempted justification by employing the standard solicitor's technique of discrediting the complainant, me.

For example she states:

"To date, and despite numerous requests, Mr Me has refused to confirm or amend the statement, which has impeded the progress of this investigation."​

Setting aside that I'd already explained that it would be impossible to confirm that the awaited written statemnt reflected the interview without being able to listen to the interview, the dumbass Head of Case Management wouldn't have written such an easily refutable garbage allegation had she apprised herself of the sequence of correspondence between me and her investigator which demonstrates that the investigation was proceeding regardless, as exemplified by the below extract from her investigating officer

​

"I would need the reviewed and signed statement so that I may consider this within the report, otherwise it has to be submitted as an unsigned statement."​

She finally confirms that I will be provided with "a copy" of the audio recording as requested". However, what they've deliberately provided, via a seperate email yesterday to only me, is not a copy of the 2.5h hour long interview but a link to an undownloadable stream which expires on 1 December.

My intention is to write to them, copying in the ICO case officer, requesting an audio file copy of the recorded interview and offering them an opportunity to retract the letter before issuing my robust response demonstrating their inept, deliberate attempted deceit.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

It appears that a plate spinning job is being done here, or as a former boss of mine once said 'beware of people who create so many diversions the subject matter is lost'.

 

[prophet01]

She finally confirms that I will be provided with "a copy" of the audio recording as requested". However, what they've deliberately provided, via a seperate email yesterday to only me, is not a copy of the 2.5h hour long interview but a link to an undownloadable stream which expires on 1 December.

My intention is to write to them, copying in the ICO case officer, requesting an audio file copy of the recorded interview and offering them an opportunity to retract the letter before issuing my robust response demonstrating their inept, deliberate attempted deceit.

Hmm, I expected some pushback.
Though I believe that they initially provided a streaming-only link deliberately, they apologised and provided me with a downloadable link.

Now that I have it I'll demend they write to the ICO retracting their wholly misrepresentative and damaging email.

 

[prophet01]

Sent yesterday... and it goes a little something like this:

"Though I am, of course, pleased that my complaint to the ICO was upheld and you have been obliged to provide me with the personal data I first requested over seven months ago, I must express my concern and dissatisfaction at the content of your letter to the ICO dated 17 November 2023.​

​

It seems to me that it represents an attempt at retrospective justification for your rejection of my SAR of 6 April 2023 and for the several breaches of data protection legislation which the ICO has deemed you to have perpetrated.​

​

My concern is that not only does it significantly misportray matters but, more importantly, it attempts to discredit me. I particularly refer to your unsubstantiated allegation that I have impeded the progress of the investigation.​

​

As such I would respectfully request that you consider the letter’s wholesale retraction."​

​

I don't expect them to retract.

 

[prophet01]

As expected, they refuse to retract.

"Our letter to the ICO was necessary to contextualise the reasoning behind our original response, and our reconsideration of the matter at this time, as invited to do so. We cannot therefore accede to your request."​

​

Unurprisingly they completely avoid referring to my accusation of misportrayal and of discrediting me.. Heads in the sand syndrome.

 

[prophet01]

I've given them one more opportunity to retract:

"....As you might have construed, I’m growing weary of Sport Resolutions gameplaying. Just as I gave 'Mr. CEO' an opportunity to reverse his decision to reject my SAR, I’m now affording you the opportunity to reverse your decision to reject my request to retract your letter to the ICO."​

​

If, as I expect, they reject my further request, I'll submit another formal complaint to the ICO both demolishing their pathetic attempted retropspective justification and their accusation that I impeded the progress of the investigation.

I'll also, seperately, expresss my disstisfaction to their board of directors, whose chair is a KC. I doubt he'd be too thrilled to learn of his employees' irrational stances which led to his organisation being found guilty of lawbreaking.

 

[prophet01]

Over Christmas I emailed Audley Sheppard KC, indpendant chair of Sport Resolutions' board of directors, setting out my grievance and requesting his intervention.
He responded the same day confirming that he'd look into the matter when Sport Resolutions office re-opened in the New Year.

His response, a few days ago, was quite bewildering:

"I have now had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the appropriate persons at Sport Resolutions. I understand that you have been provided with the audio recording which you had requested and was the gravamen of your complaint to the ICO.​

Regards​

Audley Sheppard KC"​

No mention whatsoever of my grievance with his executive team, which was the point of my email to him.

I've emailed him again reiterating the grievance, which he'd failed to address.

"Gravamen"..had to look that one up. What a great word to add to my vocabulary.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Outside of the story itself I'm amazed at the comments on social media from the plethora of folk that are shocked at the lack of ability for chief executives to do the right thing, that the company comes first, that we live first and foremost in a corrupt world.

I started a thread about the Post Office scandal with the above statement.

You are experiencing everything Alan Bates and the Postmasters faced and I know from experience that you are banging your head against a brick wall.

Maybe a reply to Audley Sheppard referencing the TV Documentary and the greater awareness and focus of both the general public and broader media to inept processes would help focus his attention?