Jaspal Singh v Information Commissioner

The application is struck out, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

On 13^th February 2026, Mr Singh made an application on form GRC3 for an order that the Information Commissioner (IC) progress his complaint. 

On 18^th March 2026, the IC applied to strike out his application.

The IC invites the Tribunal to find that the case has no reasonable prospect of success on the basis that a response was provided on 16^th March 2026 and there were no further procedural steps that the Tribunal may order.

On 6th May 2026 the Appellant provided a response. The Appellant asserted that there was a procedural failure and that the IC ought to have taken steps to investigate his complaint, notwithstanding the fact that no copy of any correspondence had been provided to them. This appeared to centre on the fact that the IC had not requested a copy of his original request to the data controller.

Rule 8(3)(c) provides that the Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding.

I have reviewed the original complaint to the IC, made on 13^th September 2025. I note that, despite the online form containing a section under which the complainant is invited to provide a copy of the complaint document, none has been uploaded. This is the basis upon which the IC has provided its response to the Appellant. In the final response to the Appellant, dated 16^th March 2026, the IC writes:

“We can only make our assessments based on the information available to us on the case. As you have not provided any evidence of your correspondence to the data controller, or received a response from them, we are unable to determine if an infringement of the legislation has occurred on this occasion.”

I find that, at the time the IC determined that it would not investigate his complaint, he had provided no copy of his correspondence with the data controller. There was, therefore, no evidence upon which the IC could base any investigation and it explained this to him in its final email of 16^th March. (I note that they failed to explain this clearly in their initial correspondence but this was, subsequently, corrected).

Without the evidence, which the initial complaint form clearly invites a complainant to upload, there was no basis upon which the IC could investigate the complaint. There is no statutory duty upon the IC to contact the data controller and the authorities are clear that the IC, as the regulator in this area, is best placed to determine how complaints should be investigated. The Tribunal has no authority to direct him to do anything other than take reasonable steps.

Given that the IC had been provided with no correspondence between the Appellant and the data controller to review, I find that in this case there were no further steps he should have taken to investigate the complaint.

On that basis, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding. The appeal is struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c).

In coming to this decision I have borne in mind the overriding objective and exercised my discretion under Rule 8(3)(c).