To Essex Police
13/08/2025 – Request for Explanation & Information – Section 184 DPA / ICO Findings
Please find the attached letter further to ICO Case Reference Number IC-356699-W0G6 in respect of which the ICO wrote some 4 weeks ago. Please note the FoIA request contained within the attached.
13/08/2025 to Essex police
Subject: Request for Explanation & Information – Section 184 DPA / ICO Findings
Background
On 16 July 2025, the ICO issued its findings in relation to my complaint against Essex Police. An
anonymised copy is available here: https://carcrime.uk/250716-ico-enforced-sar-consent
disclosure/. The ICO wrote:
I have considered the information available to me in relation to this complaint and I am of the view that Essex Police has not complied with its obligations under data protection law in this instance. This is because I am not satisfied that [loss adjuster’s] right of access request of 10 October 2024 was an “enforced SAR” for the purposes of Section 184 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The reason for this is that the scope of this request specifically excludes “relevant records.” Consequently, it is the ICO’s view that there is now further action required.
Action required
To clarify, this is not to say that the ICO would require Essex Police to release all of the information that [loss adjusters] has asked for as I would be minded to agree that it is unlikely that much of what has been requested would constitute [the data subject’s] personal data. Instead, the ICO has written to Essex Police again to inform it of the assessment made for this complaint. We have required it to review its handling of this right of access request, and provide [loss adjusters with a comprehensive disclosure of any personal data to which it would be entitled. I am not necessarily sure I agree that the consent form provided by [the data subject] does not match the scope of what was asked for. However, if Essex Police does have concerns about its content, it should revert to [the loss adjusters] to ask for whatever it would need in order to proceed
The ICO confirmed exactly what I had previously conveyed to you, to Essex Police — that the allegation I was associated with criminal activity under Section 184 DPA 2018 (Enforced Subject Access) was wrong. The ICO accepted that my request specifically excluded “relevant records” (police and health records as defined in Schedule 18) and therefore could not constitute the offence.
Despite this, I have received no update from Essex Police in the four weeks since the ICO’s decision.
Concern
Considering the ICO’s confirmation, Essex Police’s stance raises serious concerns:
Page 1 of 3
- Either there was a fundamental lack of understanding of Section 184 and Schedule 18 by those tasked with applying it, or
- The legislation was intentionally misrepresented to obstruct a lawful process.
The latter would reflect behaviour of the kind I was wrongly accused of, and it would be especially concerning coming from a specialist disclosure unit. That this unit is employed by law enforcement, a police service, compounds the seriousness.
Schedule 18 – Relevant Records
- My request did not seek criminal or health records. It explicitly excluded them.
- Without a “relevant record” as defined in Schedule 18, Section 184 cannot be made out.
- Despite this, Essex Police maintained an accusatory position, was intransigent and refused to provide the requested information.
During our 02 December 2024 conversation, I asked you to provide the reference you relied upon for your interpretation of Schedule 18. You agreed to do so, but no such reference was ever provided.
In the absence of any other explanation, I assume you knew your position was flawed and that the material would undermine your stance — as the ICO has now confirmed.
Section 184 Allegation
- The accusation that I had committed a criminal offence was unfounded.
- The ICO has confirmed I am “not guilty” of a Section 184 offence because the request excluded relevant records.
- I require a formal apology and confirmation that any Essex Police records or systems that associate my name with criminal conduct in this context have been corrected.
“Others”
You indicated that “others” had raised similar requests. When I sought details of these “others”, Essex police stated they held no information. This inconsistency requires explanation.
Ignorance of the Law
Given the simplicity of Section 184, it is difficult to understand how a senior specialist in information management could misunderstand it. This raises questions of competence, training, and professional standards. My own public commentary on “ignorance of the law” is here
ICO’s Further Action
The ICO has written to Essex Police stating:
“… review its handling of this right of access request and provide CMA with a comprehensive disclosure of any personal data to which it would be entitled.”
“… if Essex Police does have concerns about [consent], it should revert to CMA to ask for
whatever it would need in order to proceed.”
More than 20 working days have passed since the ICO’s letter, yet I have received no update from Essex Police.
Requests for Action
(A) Disclosure
- Please provide the requested information in full.
If information is to be withheld, please set out clearly:
- The specific grounds for withholding.
- The legal basis relied upon.
- Whether you have any concerns about the consent form, and if so, why these have not
been raised with me directly as the ICO suggested.
(B) Freedom of Information Act request
2. Please provide copies of:
a) Internal deliberations, meetings, memos, legal advice, and emails (internal and external – including with other constabularies, lawyers, NPCC, or its departments) relating to the ICO’s finding, your considerations, and any ramifications.
b) All exchanges with the ICO regarding this matter.
c) Records of your review of the request, including arguments for and against disclosure.
The disclosure will extend to:
d) All activity undertaken upon receipt of the ICO’s findings.
e) The reasons why no update has been provided to me in over four weeks.
f) The considerations and deliberations within Essex Police regarding the ICO’s findings.
g) Any “lessons learned” identified, the considerations and how these have been disseminated internally.
Remarks
Despite the ICO’s findings, Essex Police’s original allegation was entirely without merit, I am without update. I expect a full explanation, a correction of any records impugning my reputation, within 10 working days of this letter.
I reserve the right to place the matters in the public domain to assist, protect, others.