ICO (UK) - Virgin Media Limited: Difference between revisions
From GDPRhub
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 4 GDPR#11 | |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 4 GDPR#11 | ||
|EU_Law_Name_1= | |EU_Law_Name_1=Regulation 22 Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 | ||
|EU_Law_Link_1=https:// | |EU_Law_Link_1=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/made | ||
|National_Law_Name_1=Section 122(5) Data Protection Act 2018 | |National_Law_Name_1=Section 122(5) Data Protection Act 2018 | ||
Revision as of 18:50, 10 December 2021
| ICO (UK) - Virgin Media Limited | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | ICO (UK) |
| Jurisdiction: | United Kingdom |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4(11) GDPR Regulation 22 Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 Section 122(5) Data Protection Act 2018 section 55A Data Protection Act 1998 |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 06.12.2021 |
| Published: | 08.12.2021 |
| Fine: | 50000 GBP |
| Parties: | Virgin Media Limited |
| National Case Number/Name: | Virgin Media Limited |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | English |
| Original Source: | ico.uk.org (in EN) |
| Initial Contributor: | Mitali Kshatriya |
The ICO fined a telecommunications company £50,000 for sending 451,217 direct marketing emails containing marketing preference reminders to users who had opted out of marketing communications.
English Summary
Facts
Virgin Media sent 1,964,562 emails concerning a price freeze (Price Freeze Emails). Of these 451,217 emails were sent to persons who had previously opted out of marketing communications with a reminder telling them that they can change their marketing preference (marketing preference emails). The UK DPA (the Information Commissioner's Office, 'ICO') received a complaint against the marketing preference emails and started an investigation.
Holding
The Price Freeze Emails containing the Marketing Preference Reminder fell within the definition of direct marketing emails under Section 122(5) of the Data Protection Act, 2018.
The marketing preference emails were sent without obtaining consent and therefore violated Regulation 22 of Directive 2002/58/EC. Paragraph 194 of ICO Direct Marketing Guidance states that users might change their marketing preference and such list should be up-to-date. However, this does not act as an exception to Regualtion 22 as in Paragraph 193 the Guidance clearly provides that "Organisations must not contact people on a suppression list at a later date to ask them if they want to opt back into receiving marketing. This contact would involve using their personal data for direct marketing purposes and is likely to breach the Data Protection Act, 1998 and will also breach Directive 2002/58/EC if the contact is by phone, text or email".
The ICO issued a fine of £50,000 for this violation.
The ICO considered that the conditions for the imposition of a monetary penalty section 55A of the UK Data Protection Act, 1998 are met, namely: the convention was sufficiently serious (since 451,217 direct marketing messages were sent without obtaining consent) as well as deliberate (as Virgin Media knew that the recipients did not consent to receive direct marketing emails) and negligent (since ICO Direct Marketing Guidance gives clear advice against marketing preference emails).
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
SUPERVISORY POWERS OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
MONETARY PENALTY NOTICE
To: Virgin Media Limited
Of: 500 Brook Drive, Reading RG2 6UU
1. The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) has decided to
issue Virgin Media Limited (“Virgin Media”) with a monetary penalty
under section 55A of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). The penalty
is in relation to a serious contravention of Regulation 22 of the Privacy
and Electronic Communications (EC Direc tive) Regulations 2003
(“PECR”).
2. This notice explains the Commissioner’s intended decision.
Legal framework
3. Virin Media, whose registered office address is given above
(Companies House Registration Number: 02591237) is the organisation
stated in this notice to have transmitted unsolicited communications by
means of electronic mail to individual subscribers for the purposes of
direct marketing contrary to regulation 22 of PECR.
4. Regulation 22 of PECR states:
1“(1) This regulation applies to the transmission of unsolicited
communications by means of electronic mail to individual
subscribers.
(2) Except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3), a person
shall neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, unsolicited
communications for the purposes of direct marketing by means of
electronic mail unless the recipient of the electronic mail has
previously notified the sender that he consents for the time being
to such communications being sent by, o r at the instigation of, the
sender.
(3) A person may send or instigate the sending of electronic mail for
the purposes of direct marketing where—
(a) that person has obtained the contact details of the recipient
of that electronic mail in the course of the sale or
negotiations for the sale of a product or service to that
recipient;
(b) the direct marketing is in respect of that person’s similar
products and services only; and
(c) the recipient has been given a simple means of refusing
(free of charge except for the costs of the transmission of
the refusal) the use of his contact details for the purposes
of such direct marketing, at the time that the details were
initially collected, and, where he did not initially refuse the
use of the details, at the time of each subsequent
communication.
(4) A subscriber shall not permit his line to be used in contravention of
paragraph (2).”
25. The provisions of the DPA and subordinate legislation made under the
DPA remain in force for the purposes of PECR notwithstanding the
introduction of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA18”): see
paragraphs 58(1) and 58(2) of Schedule 20 to the DPA18.
6. Section 122(5) of the DPA18 defines direct marketing as “the
communication (by whatever means) of advertising or marketing
material which is directed to particular individuals ”. This definition also
applies for the purposes of PECR (see regulation 2(2) PECR and
paragraphs 430 & 432(6) to Schedule 19 of the DPA18).
7. Consent in PECR is now defined, from 29 March 2019, by reference to
the concept of consent in Regulation 2016/679 (“the GDPR”):
regulation 8(2) of the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic
Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Article
4(11) of the GDPR sets out the following definition: “ ‘consent’ of the
data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and
unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes by which he or
she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies
agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her”.
8. Recital 32 of the GDPR materially states that “When the processing has
multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them” . Recital 43
materially states that “Consent is presumed not to be freely given if it
does not allow separate consent to be given to different personal data
processing operations despite it being appropriate in the individual case.”
9. “Individual” is defined in regulation 2(1) of PECR as “a living individual
and includes an unincorporated body of such individuals ”.
310. A “subscriber” is defined in regulation 2(1) of PECR as “a person who is
a party to a contract with a provider of public electronic
communications services for the supply of such services”.
11. “Electronic mail” is defined in regulation 2(1) of PECR as “any text,
voice, sound or image message sent over a public electronic
communications network which can be stored in the network or in the
recipient’s terminal equipment until it is collected by the recipient and
includes messages sent using a short message service”.
12. Section 55A of the DPA (as applied to PECR cases by Schedule 1 to
PECR, as variously amended) states (in material part):
“(1) The Commissioner may serve a person with a monetary penalty
notice if the Commissioner is satisfied that –
(a) there has been a serious contravention of therequirements
of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC
Directive) Regulations 2003 by the person,
(b) subsection (2) or (3) applies.
(2) This subsection applies if the contravention was deliberate.
(3) This subsection applies if the person –
(a) knew or ought to have known that there was a risk that the
contravention would occur, but
(b) failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the
contravention.”
13. The Commissioner has issued statutory guidance under section 55C(1)
of the DPA about the issuing of monetary penalties that has been
published on the ICO’s website. The Data Protection (Monetary
Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 prescribe
4 that the amount of any penalty determined by the Commissioner must
not exceed £500,000.
14. PECR were enacted to protect individuals ’ fundamental right to privacy
in the electronic communications sector. PECR were subsequently
amended and strengthened. The Commissioner will interpret PECR in a
way which is consistent with the Regulations’ overall aim of en suring
high levels of protection for individuals’ privacy rights.
15. The provisions of the DPA remain in force for the purposes of PECR
notwithstanding the introduction of the DPA18: see paragraph 58(1) of
Schedule 20 to the DPA18.
Background to the case
16. This Notice concerns 451,217 marketing emails sent to persons who
had previously opted out of marketing communications from Virgin
Media.
17. Virgin Media is a British telecommunications company. It first came to
the attention of the ICO in connection with this matter on 10 August
2020. The ICO received a complaint (the “Complaint”) from someone
complaining about a direct marketing email they had received from
Virgin Media on 4 August 2020.
18. The email stated (in material part, with emphasis added):
“We want to let you know that we won’t be raising your price this
year.
5 This means the price you pay for your current package right now
will stay the same in 2020.
We’d like to stay in touch about all the great Virgin Media
stuff we have on offer for you. You have currently said no
to receiving marketing messages from us, which means
that we are not able to keep you up to date with our latest
TV, broadband, phone and mobile news, competitions,
product and bundle offers via online, email, post, SMS,
phone.
You can change your preferences by simply registering or
signing in to virginmedia.com/optin. Click ‘My Profile’, then
‘My Preferences’.”
19. The text in bold will be referred to in this document as the “Marketing
Preference Reminder”.
20. The complainant said that this email was “basically a service message
dressed up as an attempt to get me to opt back in to marketing
communications”.
21. The ICO opened an investigation.
22. In outline, the correspondence proceeded as follows:
a. On 13 August 2020, the ICO sent an initial investigation letter
to Virgin Media. This letter explained the relevant legislation,
set out the ICO’s powers, and made some requests for
information.
6 b. On 5 October 2020, Virgin Media provided its responseto the
ICO’s letter of 13 August 2020. The material details of that
response are set out further below.
c. On 16 October 2020, the ICO responded seeking further
information (including evidence of Virgin Media’s consent
statements).
d. On 21 October 2020, the ICO spoke with Virgin Media. Virgin
Media asked why the ICO needed to see its consent
statements. The ICO explained that it needed to assess
whether Virgin Media had obtained the requisite consent for
the Marketing Email.
e. On 23 October 2020, Virgin Media provided its response to the
ICO’s letter of 16 October 2020. The material details of that
response are set out further below.
f. On 24 November 2020, the ICO asked Virgin Media to provide
further information.
g. On 8 December 2020, Virgin Media provided its response to
the ICO’s letter of 24 November 2020. The material details of
that response are set out further below.
h. On 10 December 2020, the ICO sent an end of investigation
letter to Virgin.
23. The ICO notes the followingmaterial facts, as supplied by Virgin Media
in the correspondence summarised above:
7a. On 4 August 2020, Virgin Media sent 1,964,562 emails
concerning a price freeze (the “Price Freeze Emails”). Of
these:
i. Virgin Media sent 1,303,671 Price Freeze Emails to
customers who had opted in to marketing
communications (“opt-in customers”), 1,303,361 of
which were received.
ii. Virgin Media sent 209,376 Price Freeze Emails to
customers who had opted out to marketing
communications (“opt-out customers”) without the
Marketing Preference Reminder, 209,254 of which were
received.
iii. Virgin Media sent 451,515 Price Freeze Emails to opt-out
customers with the Marketing Preference Reminder,
451,217 of which were received. The email received by
the individual who had complained to the ICO was
within this category.
b. The data for the Prize Freeze Emails was obtained directly
from customers.
c. Virgin Media stated that it received “feedback” from customers
(it is not specified how many) that “ a number of them would
like to be informed about packages, products and discounts
that may be available and some customers are unaware that
they have not opted-in to all forms of marketing.”
d. Virgin Media stated that, based on that feedback, and the ICO
Direct Marketing Guidance at paragraph 32 below, it “selected
8 a segment of opted-out customers who we reasonably
considered might have changed their marketing preferences.
The customers selected were those who had opted out over a
year ago.”
e. Virgin Media does operate a suppression list for marketing
communications, but the suppression process was only applied
“for opted-out customers who Virgin Media considered were
unlikely to have changed their mind about their marketing
preferences.”
f. Virgin Media uses a “one time opt in to all channels’ sales
journey”. Virgin Media has the following procedure for
obtaining consent from customers:
“a. All sales journeys capture consent preferences which
are recorded within that journey. A customer is not able to
complete a sale without confirming whether they consent
to receiving marketing communications. Virgin Media
currently operates an opt in approach and new customers
are required to tick the box to opt-in to marketing
communications;
b. A customer’s consent preference is captured and
recorded within internal Virgin Media systems;
c. Virgin Media does not have channel (i.e. email SMS)
specific preference capability, therefore a customer
consents to all marketing communications as set out in
the consent statement (which explains that Virgin Media
may provide marketing information by email or SMS, as
well as other channels);
d. A customer can change their marketing preference in
different ways (speaking to an agent, emailing the DPO,
through their My VM account on the website), or by
clicking ‘unsubscribe’ (via email or SMS).”
9 g. None of the consent statements presented to individuals by
Virgin Media (Telesales Inbound, Inbound Retentions, Inbound
Care, Online, VM store, Bafta Competition, Virgin Media Portal
General Customer, Virgin Media General Agent), nor the Virgin
Media account preferences, permit individuals to choose
specific communications by which to receive marketing
communications. Virgin Media also stated: “…if an individual
consents to receive marketing, they are opted in to all
communication methods. Virgin Media does not cur rently have
channel (i.e. email, SMS) specific preference capability,
therefore a customer consents to all marketing
communications as set out in the consent statement.”
24. The Commissioner has made the above findings of fact on the
balance of probabilities.
25. The Commissioner has considered whether those facts constitute
a contravention of regulation 22 of PECR by Virgin Media and, if so,
whether the conditions of section 55A DPA are satisfied.
The contravention
26. The Commissioner finds that Virgin Media contravened regulation 22 of
PECR.
27. The Commissioner finds that the contravention was as follows:
28. The Commissioner finds that on or around 4 August 2020 there were
451,217 direct marketing emails containing the Marketing Preference
Reminder received by subscribers. The Commissioner finds that Virgin
Media transmitted those direct marketing messages.
1029. The Marketing Preference Reminder sought to entice or encourage
customers to update their marketing preferences. It also marketed
Virgin Media’s commercial offerings, i.e. “ the great Virgin Media stuff
we have on offer for you…our latest TV, broadband, phone and mobile
news, competitions, product and bundle offers.”
30. As such, the Price Freeze Emails containing the Marketing Preference
Reminder fell within the definition of direct marketing as set out at
paragraph 6 above.
31. Virgin Media, as the sender of the direct marketing, was required to
ensure that it was acting in compliance with the requirements of
regulation 22 of PECR, and that valid consent to send those messages
had been acquired.
32. In this instance, the requisite consent was not obtained because the
451,217 recipients of the direct marketing had opted out of marketing
communications. No issue arises as to whether consent was “freely
given”, “specific”, “informed” and “unambiguous”, because consent was
not given.
33. In the course of the investigation, Virgin Media stated that in deciding
(i) which customers would receive Price Freeze Emails , and (ii) the
wording for the same, Virgin Media relied on the ICO Direct Marketing
Guidance (v. 2.3). Virgin Media noted that th e ICO Direct Marketing
Guidance provides [at paragraph 194] that people can change their
minds and that marketing strategies also change, and that there is some
merit in making sure that the information about people’s preferences is
accurate and up -to-date. That does not, however, constitute an
exception to regulation 22 of PECR. Further , it is noted that paragraph
193 of the same Guidance states: “Organisations must not contact
people on a suppression list at a later date to ask them if they want to
11 opt back in to receiving marketing. This contact would involve using their
personal data for direct marketing purposes and is likely to breach the
DPA, and will also breach PECR if the contact is by phone, text or email.”
34. Virgin Media also noted that in the two weeks following the Price Freeze
Emails containing the Marketing Preference Reminder, 6,539 customers
elected to adjust their preferences and opt in to marketing . This does
not constitute an exception to r egulation 22 of PECR either. Rather, the
fact that Virgin Media had the potential for financial gain from its breach
of the regulation (by signing up more clients to direct marketing) is an
aggravating factor, not a defence.
35. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied from the evidence he has seen
that Virgin Media did not have the necessary valid consent for the
451,217 direct marketing messages received by subscribers.
36. The Commissioner has gone on to consider whether the conditions
under section 55A DPA are met.
Seriousness of the contravention
37. The Commissioner is satisfied that the contravention identified
above was serious. This is because on one day, a confirmed total of
451,217 direct marketing messages were sent by Virgin Media. These
messages contained direct marketing material for which subscribers
had not provided valid consent.
38. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that condition (a) from
section 55A(1) DPA is met.
12 Deliberate or negligent contraventions
39. The Commissioner has considered whether the contravention identified
above was deliberate. In the Commissioner’s view, this means that
Virgin Media’s actions which constituted that contravention were
deliberate actions (even if Virgin Media did not actually intend thereby
to contravene PECR).
40. The Commissioner considers that in this case Virgin Media did
deliberately contravene regulation 22 of PECR. Virgin Media does not
say that it did not know that the 451,217 recipients of the email in
question had not provided valid consent. On the contrary, its position is
that these recipients were selected, in part, because they had opted
out of marketing communications (and, Virgin Media says, because it
reasonably considered that they might wish to change that preference).
It is noted that on the same day as the contravention, Virgin Media
sent 209,254 emails without the Marketing Preference Reminder to
opt-out customers, and so was self-evidently selecting recipients on
the basis of known criteria.
41. For the above reasons, the Commissioner is satisfied that this breach
was deliberate.
42. In the alternative, the Commissioner has gone on to consider whether
the contravention identified above was negligent. This consideration
comprises two elements.
43. Firstly, he has considered whether Virgin Media knew or ought
reasonably to have known that there was a risk that the se
contraventions would occur.He is satisfied that this condition is met, for
the following reasons. Unsolicited direct marketing emails are widely
13 known to be a problem. Virgin Media is a large organisation with a
longstanding, positive working relationship with the ICO. Further, the
Commissioner has published detailed guidance for those carrying out
direct marketing explaining their legal obligations under PECR. This
guidance gives clear advice regarding the requirements of consent for
direct marketing and explains the circumstances under which
organisations are able to carry out marketing over the phone, by text,
by email, by post, or by fax. In particular it states that organisations can
generally only send, or instigate, marketing messages to individuals if
that person has specifically consented to receiving them . The
Commissioner has also published detailed guidance on consent under
the GDPR. In case organisations remain unclear on their obligations, the
ICO operates a telephone helpline. ICO communications about previous
enforcement action where businesses have not complied with PECR are
also readily available. Virgin Media could have sought cl arification or
guidance if it was unsure as to any particular issue.
44. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that Virgin Mediashould have been
aware of its responsibilities in this area.
45. Secondly, the Commissioner has gone on to consider whether Virgin
Media failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the contraventions.
Again, he is satisfied that this condition is met.
46. This is not a case in which communications were sent inadvertently.
They were targeted at users who had opted out from receiving such
communications. That demonstrates in itself that no reasonable steps
were taken to prevent the contraventions. Further, if there was doubt
about whether the emails in question would contravene reg ulation 22,
Virgin Media could legitimately have sought advice from the
Commissioner. It failed to do so.
1447. In the circumstances, the Commissioner is satisfied that Virgin Media
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the contraventions.
48. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that condition (b ) from section
55A (1) DPA is met.
The Commissioner’s decision to issue a monetary penalty
49. For the reasons explained above, the Commissioner is satisfied that the
conditions from section 55A (1) DPA have been met in this case. He is
also satisfied that the procedural rights under section 55B have been
complied with. The latter has included the issuing of a Notice of Intent,
in which the Commissioner set out his preliminary thinking. In reaching
his final view, the Commissioner has taken into account the
representations made by Virgin Media on this matter.
50. The Commissioner is accordingly entitled to issue a monetary penalty
in this case. The Commissioner has considered whether, in the
circumstances, he should exercise his discretion so as to issue a
monetary penalty.
51. The Commissioner’s underlying objective in imposing a monetary
penalty notice is to promote compliance with PECR. The sending of
unsolicited direct marketing messages is a matter of significant public
concern. A monetary penalty in this case should act as a general
encouragement towards compliance with the law, or at least as a
deterrent against non-compliance, on the part of all persons running
businesses currently engaging in these practices. The issuing of a
monetary penalty will reinforce the need for businesses to ensure that
they are only messaging those who specifically consent to receive
direct marketing.
1552. For these reasons, the Commissioner has decided to issue a monetary
penalty in this case.
The amount of the penalty
53. In determining the amount of the penalty, the Commissioner first
considered the nature and seriousness of the contravention. He
concluded that an appropriate starting point for the penalty should be
£50,000.
54. The Commissioner went on to consider whether there were any
aggravating or mitigating factors which would warrant an increase or
reduction to this starting point.
55. The Commissioner identified the following aggravating features of this
case:
• The business generated from the emails in question would have the
potential of Virgin Media benefitting from financial gain.
• The ICO produces clear guidance via its website on the rules of direct
marketing and that guidance on current regulations has been in
existence for a considerable amount of time. The ICO also operates a
helpline, should organisations be unsure and require further clarification.
56. The Commissioner did not consider that there are any mitigating
factors of this case.
57. The Commissioner also considered the likely impact of a monetary
penalty on Virgin Media. He has decided on the information that is
available to him, that Virgin Media has access to sufficient financial
16 resources to pay the proposed monetary penalty without causing
undue financial hardship and that a penalty remains the appropriate
course of action in the circumstances of this case.
58. The Commissioner did not consider that any of the above factors
warranted an increase or decrease in the starting point for the penalty.
59. Taking into account all of the above, the Commissioner has decided
that a penalty in the sum of £50,000 (fifty thousand pounds) is
reasonable and proportionate given the particular facts of the case and
the underlying objective in imposing the penalty.
Conclusion
60. The monetary penalty must be paid to the Commissioner’s office by
BACS transfer or cheque by 10 January 2022 at the latest. The
monetary penalty is not kept by the Commissioner but will be paid into
the Consolidated Fund which is the Government’s general bank account
at the Bank of England.
61. If the Commissioner receives full payment of the monetary penalty by
9 January 2022 the Commissioner will reduce the monetary penalty by
20% to £40,000 (forty thousand pounds). However, you should be
aware that the early payment discount is not available if you decide to
exercise your right of appeal.
62. There is a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
against:
(a) the imposition of the monetary penalty
and/or;
17 (b) the amount of the penalty specified in the monetary penalty
notice.
63. Any notice of appeal should be received by the Tribunal within 28 days
of the date of this monetary penalty notice.
64. Information about appeals is set out in Annex 1.
65. The Commissioner will not take action to enforce a monetary penalty
unless:
• the period specified within the notice within which a monetary
penalty must be paid has expired and all or any of the monetary
penalty has not been paid;
• all relevant appeals against the monetary penalty notice and any
variation of it have either been decided or with drawn; and
• the period for appealing against the monetary penalty and any
variation of it has expired.
66. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is
recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In
Scotland, the monetary penalty can be enforced in the same manner as
an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution
issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
Dated the 6 thDecember 2021
Andy Curry
Head of Investigations
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
18Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
19ANNEX 1
SECTION 55 A-E OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
RIGHTS OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER
1. Section 55B(5) of the Data Protection Act 1998 gives any person
upon whom a monetary penalty notice has been served a right of
appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (the ‘Tribunal’)
against the notice.
2. If you decide to appeal and if the Tribunal considers:-
a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in
accordance with the law; or
b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of
discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised
her discretion differently,
the Tribunal will allow the appeal or substitute such other decision as
could have been made by the Commissioner. In any other case the
Tribunal will dismiss the appeal.
3. You may bring an appeal by serving a notice of appeal on the
Tribunal at the following address:
General Regulatory Chamber
HM Courts & Tribunals Service
PO Box 9300
Leicester
LE1 8DJ
20 Telephone: 0203 936 8963
Email: grc@justice.gov.uk
a) The notice of appeal should be sent so it is received by the
Tribunal within 28 days of the date of the notice.
b) If your notice of appeal is late the Tribunal will not admit it
unless the Tribunal has extended the time for complying with this
rule.
4. The notice of appeal should state:-
a) your name and address/name and address of your
representative (if any);
b) an address where documents may be sent or delivered to
you;
c) the name and address of the Information Commissioner;
d) details of the decision to which the proceedings relate;
e) the result that you are seeking;
f) the grounds on which you rely;
g) you must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of the
monetary penalty notice or variation notice;
h) if you have exceeded the time limit mentioned above the
notice of appeal must include a request for an extension of time
21 and the reason why the notice of appeal was not provided in
time.
5. Before deciding whether or not to appeal you may wish to consult
your solicitor or another adviser. At the hearing of an appeal a party
may conduct his case himself or may be represented by any person
whom he may appoint for that purpose.
6. The statutory provisions concerning appeals to the First- tier
Tribunal (Information Rights) are contained in section 55B(5) of, and
Schedule 6 to, the Data Protection Act 1998, and Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
(Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 1976 (L.20)).
22
