Introduction 1. The Appellant seeks an order under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) requiring the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) to undertake a substantive investigation and take appropriate steps to respond to her complaint concerning NatWest Group and Zinc Group including: 2. Obtain from NatWest group and Zinc Group and review the complete SAR datasets, including special-category fields and audit trails, from October 2021; 3. Obtain and review copies of any Article 28 controller–processor contracts and any Article 35 DPIA or risk assessment relevant to the processing complained of; 4. Determine and record the lawful basis relied on for any special-category processing and whether erasure obligations arise under Article 17; and 5. Issue a reasoned decision addressing Articles 5, 6, 9, 17, 28 and 35 and notify the complainant accordingly. 6. In his response to the application, the Commissioner invites the Tribunal to strike out the appeallants appeal on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal and/or that the appeal has no reasonable prospects of succeeding and accordingly, should be struck out. 7. The Appellant opposes the strike out and seeks an order from the Tribunal directing the Commissioner to undertake a full and appropriate investigation into her complaint. The Appellant sets out the steps which she deems to be appropriate for the Commissioner to take. Legal Framework 1. Under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal considers it does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them; and does not exercise its power under rule 5(3)(k)(i) (transfer to another court or tribunal) in relation to the proceedings or that part of them. 2. Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules, the Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant’s case, or part of it, succeeding. 3. Section 165 DPA sets out the right of data subjects to complain to the Commissioner about infringement of their rights under the data protection legislation. Under section 166 DPA a data subject can make an application to this Tribunal for an order as follows: 166 Orders to progress complaints (1) This section applies where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section165 or Article 77 of the UK GDPR, the Commissioner – (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, (b) fails to provide the complainant with information about progress on thecomplaint, or of the outcome of the complaint, before the end of the periodof 3 months beginning when the Commissioner received the complaint, or (c) if the Commissioner's consideration of the complaint is not concluded duringthat period, fails to provide the complainant with such information during asubsequent period of 3 months. (2) The Tribunal may, on an application by the data subject, make an order requiringthe Commissioner – (a) to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, or (b) to inform the complainant of progress on the complaint, or of the outcomeof the complaint, within a period specified in the order. 4. The Tribunal can only make an order under section 166(2) if one of the conditions at section 166(1) (a), (b) or (c) is met. There have been a number of appeal decisions which have considered the scope of section 166. It is clearly established that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to procedural issues, rather than the merits or substantive outcome of a complaint. Some key decisions are: a. Scranage v Information Commissioner[2020] UKUT 196 (AAC), paragraph 6 – "In my experience – both in the present appeal and in many other cases – thereis a widespread misunderstanding about the reach of section 166. Contrary tomany data subjects’ expectations, it does not provide a right of appeal againstthe substantive outcome of the Information Commissioner’s investigation on itsmerits. Thus, section 166(1), which sets out the circumstances in which anapplication can be made to the Tribunal is procedural rather than substantive inits focus." (emphasis in original). b. Killock v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241, Upper Tribunal at paragraph 74 – "…It is plain from the statutory words that, on an application undersection 166, the Tribunal will not be concerned and has no power to deal with themerits of the complaint or its outcome. We reach this conclusion on the plain andordinary meaning of the statutory language but it is supported by the ExplanatoryNotes to the Act which regard the section 166 remedy as reflecting the provisionsof article 78(2) which are procedural. Any attempt by a party to divert a tribunalfrom the procedural failings listed in section 166 towards a decision on the meritsof the complaint must be firmly resisted by tribunals." Background 5. The factual background to this case is succinctly set out at [24] to [31] of the Commissioner’s response dated 10 October 2025: 27. The Applicant made a complaint on 8 May 2025 against NatWest and the Zinc Group Ltd (“Zinc”). The complaint asserted the unlawful acquisition, sharing and retention of medical data in March 2022 which was subsequently erased in March 2025 by Zinc but not by NatWest. In relation to NatWest only, the complaint raised concerns regarding the use of a third parties; namely, Zinc and TLT LLP. In relation to Zinc only, the complaint asserted a failure to acknowledge or remediate breaches. 28. The Applicant requested that the ICO open a full investigation and enforcement proceedings, conduct an audit, issue sector-wide guidance, issue financial penalties, outline Data Protection Impact Assessment (“DPIA”) standards for all third party processors holding special category data on behalf of financial institutions and take public accountability measures for data protection failures within majority state-owned banks including transparency obligations and public disclosures, as well as a review of erasure compliance. 29. On 1 July 2025, the case officer wrote to the Applicant confirming that they had been allocated to their complaint under the case reference IC-385898-T8S8. In doing so, they requested any further developments and correspondence, further information was provided by the Applicant on 14 July 2025. 30. On 17 July 2025, the case officer wrote to the Applicant stating they would be writing to NatWest. They explained the role of the Commissioner, provided guidance and the view that they were satisfied with NatWest’s explanation and justification for information being shared with the Credit Reference Agencies. Additionally, they outlined that the Commissioner would not be commenting on matters regarding NatWest Group shareholder board, the scheduled transaction on a dormant account nor compensation. Of note, the response outlined that the Commissioner does not normally take regulatory action for individual complaints. [Annex 1]. 31. After correspondence with both the Applicant and NatWest, the case officer wrote to the Applicant on 21 August 2025 providing an outcome; namely, that the Commissioner’s view is that NatWest and Zinc have not fully complied with their obligations under data protection legislation. However, they were satisfised that NatWest had taken appropriate steps to improve their policies/procedures and they provided assurances regarding the measures in place in relation to the special processing and retention of special category data. The case officer was satisfied with NatWest’s handling of the SAR. [Annex 2] 32. On the same date, the Applicant wrote to the Commissioner requesting for the complaint to remain open until the response to the SAR was provided and raising a complaint that NatWest was in breach of Article 37-39 of the UK GDPR by not having a properly functioning Data Protection Officer (“DPO”). [Annex 3] 33. The case officer responded on 26 August 2025, stating that the complaint had been closed and if there are concerns regarding NatWest’s further SAR response a review can be requested; however, it would be unlikely that any further action would be taken. In relation to the DPO, the case officer outlines that sufficient contact details have been given and that the DPO is not required to respond personally to all concerns and thus that NatWest have fulfilled their obligations regarding a DPO. [Annex 4] 34. On 1 September 2025, an email was received from the Applicant expressing her intention, amongst other things, to bring the matter before the First-Tier Tribunal. Subsequently, the GRC1 form dated 9 September 2025 was provided. Conclusions 8. I find that the Commissioner has provided an outcome to the complaint on 21 August 2025 and a further update on 26 August 2025. 9. Contrary to the expectations of many Appellants, section 166 does not provide a right of appeal against the substantive outcome of the Commissioner’s investigation on its merits. The Tribunal is bound to take into consideration and give weight to the views of the Commissioner, as described by the Chamber President in Barbara Rogers v ICO EA/2021/0348: ’14…In the sphere of complaints, the Commissioner has the institutional competence and is in the best position to decide what investigations he should undertake into any particular issue, and how he should conduct those investigations. This will be informed not only by the nature of the complaint itself but also by a range of other factors such as his own registry priorities, other investigations in the same subject area and his judgement on how to deploy his limited resources most effectively: Killock & Ors v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299. The obligation of the Commissioner is to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint’. 10. The Appellant’s response to the strike out application requests that the Tribunal order the Commissioner to undertake a substantive investigation in response to the complaint. It is clear that the Appellant is challenging the substantive outcome of the complaint to the Commissioner. The Tribunal does not have the power under section 166 to consider the merits or substantive outcome of a complaint. 11. Section 166 is limited to procedural issues. The Commissioner took steps to investigate and respond to the complaint. It provided an outcome to the complaint. For these reasons, I find that the Commissioner has not failed to comply with the procedural requirements set out in section 166(1) of the DPA. I therefore find that there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal or any part of it, succeeding. The proceedings are therefore struck out. Signed: Judge Peri Mornington Date: 10 November 2025