ICO (UK) - Monetary Penalty Notice to Easylife Limited

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 21:21, 9 October 2022 by Lauren7 (talk | contribs)
ICO - Monetary Penalty Notice to Easylife Limited
LogoUK.png
Authority: ICO (UK)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
Article 6 GDPR
Article 9 GDPR
Article 13 GDPR
Type: Investigation
Outcome: Violation Found
Started:
Decided: 04.10.2022
Published:
Fine: 1,350,000 GBP
Parties: Easylife Ltd.
National Case Number/Name: Monetary Penalty Notice to Easylife Limited
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: Unknown
Original Language(s): English
Original Source: ICO (in EN)
Initial Contributor: Lauren

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) imposed a fine of £1,350,000 on Easylife, as it failed to collect consent and inform the customers about profiling of special category (health) data when customers purchased Easylife's products.

English Summary

Facts

The defendant, Easylife, is a catalogue retailer that sells health related services and products. It is considered as the data controller of customers' data.

The ICO investigation found that between August 2019 and 19 August 2020, when a customer purchased a "trigger product" from Easylife’s Health Club catalogue, the company would make assumptions about customers' medical conditions and then market health-related products to them without their consent. Easylife linked the trigger products to several health conditions which Easylife inferred that the customer was likely to have, and then triggered marketing calls through a third party telemarketing provider based on the transaction data. Overall, this incident affected 145,400 individual customers' personal data, including their names, telephone numbers, and special category data.

Holding

The ICO found that the transactional purchase data of Easylife's customers was personal data. The ICO became concerned that using transaction data to make inferences about health conditions could constitute profiling, and the inferences made about health conditions could indicate processing of special category data.

When Easylife used relevant transactional data to select customers for telemarketing, this constituted profiling. When Easylife used the transactional data to decide which products to market to which customers, based on its inferences of customer's health conditions, this constituted the processing of special category data, irrespective of Easylife's level of statistical confidence over the profiling.

The ICO held that Easylife breached Article 13 of the GDPR since the customers were not informed that their information would be used for profiling purpose. Easylife did not collect consent to process special category data, instead it relied on legitimate interest. As a result it also breached Article 6 and Article 9 of the GDPR for not having lawful basis to process special category data. Since the individuals were not informed about profiling of special category data, the ICO held that Easylife conducted "invisible" processing of special category data and did not process the data fairly, lawfully or transparently pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. Accordingly, the ICO imposed a fine of £1,350,000 on Easylife.

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.

                                                                  •

                                                                 I  C     O      .
                                                                 Information Commissioner's Office

         DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018 (PART 6, SECTION 155)


   SUPERVISORY POWERS OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

                       MONETARY PENALTY NOTICE


To:   Easylife Limited

Of:   94 Orchard Gate, Greenford, England, UB6 0QP


Introduction and Summary

 1.    This Information Commissioner ("the Commissioner") has decided to
       issue Easylife Limited ("Easylife") with a monetary penalty under

       section 155 of the Data Protection Act 2018 ("the DPA"). The penalty
       notice imposes an administrative fine on Easylife, in accordance with
       the Commissioner's powers under Article 83 of the General Data
       Protection Regulation 2016 ("the GDPR"). The amount of the penalty is

       £1,350,000 (one million, three hundred and fifty thousand pounds).

 2.    The  penalty is in relation to contraventions of Article 5(l)(a) of the
       GDPR and an ongoing incident during the period of 1 August 2019 to 19

       August 2020 ("the relevant period") affecting personal data processed
       by Easylife during the relevant period ("the Incident")1.

 3.    For the   reasons  set out in this    Monetary Penalty     Notice, the

       Commissioner has found that Easylife failed to process personal data in

 1The applicable legislation at the time of the Incident was the (EU) GDPR. The Commissioner was at
 the material time the supervisory authority in respect of the (EU) GDPR.

                                      1                                                                     •

                                                                     I  C     O      .
                                                                     Information Commissioner's Office
       relation to data subjects lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner,
       as required by Article S(l)(a) GDPR.


 4.    This   Notice  explains   the  Commissioner     decision,   including  the
       Commissioner's reasons for issuing the penalty and for the amount of
       the penalty.


Legal Framework

Obligations of the Controller

 5.    Easylife is a controller for the purposes of the GDPR and the DPA,

       because it determines the purposes and means of processing of personal
       data (GDPR Article 4(7)).


 6.    "Personal data"  is defined by Article 4(1) of the GDPR to mean:


                    "information relating to an identified or identifiable natural
                    person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one
                    who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by

                    reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification
                    number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more
                    factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic,
                    mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural

                    person."


 7.    "Processing"  is defined by Article 4(2) of the GDPR to mean:


                    "any operation or set of operations which is performed on
                    personal data or on sets ofpersonal data, whether or not by

                                        2                                                                    •

                                                                   I  C     O      .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
                  automated      means,    such    as   collection,  recording,
                  organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration,

                  retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission,
                  dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or
                  combination, restriction, erasure or destruction"


8.    Article 4(4) of the GDPR defines profiling:


                   "'profiling' means any form of automated processing of
                  personal data consisting of the use of personal data to
                  evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural

                  person, in particularto analyse orpredictaspects concerning
                   that natural person's performance at work, economic
                  situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability,

                  behaviour, location  or movements;"

9.    Article 9 GDPR prohibits the processing of"special categories ofpersonal

      data"  unless certain conditions are met. The special categories of
      personal data subject to Article 9 include"data concerning health or data
      concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation".


10.   Controllers are subject to various obligations in relation to the processing
      of personal data, as set out in the GDPR and the DPA. They are obliged

      by Article 5(2) to adhere to the data processing principles set out in
      Article 5(1) of the GDPR. Article 5(2) makes clear that the    "controller
      shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with,

      paragraph 1 ('accountability')".

11.   In particular, controllers are required to process personal data in relation


                                       3                                                                    •

                                                                   I   C     O      .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
      to data subjects lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner, as required
      by Article S(l)(a) of the GDPR. Article S(l)(a) ("lawfulness, fairness and
      transparency") stipulates that:


            "Personal data shall be [...] processed lawfully, fairly and in a
            transparent manner in relation to the data subject"


12.   Article 13 of the GDPR requires information to be provided where
      personal data are collected    from the data subject. Article 13(1)(3)
      provides:


            "Where personal data relating to a data subject are collected from
            the data subject, the controller shall, at the time when personal

            data are obtained, provide the data subject with all ofthe following
            information: ... (c) the purposes of the processing for which the
            personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the
            processing"


13.   Article 13(3) of the GDPR requires:


            "Where the controller intends to further process the personal data
            for a purpose other than that for which the personal data were
            collected, the controller shall provide the data subject prior to that
            further processing with information on that otherpurpose and with
            any relevant further information as referred to in paragraph    2."


14.   Section 1 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (namely Articles 24-31) addresses
      the general obligations of controllers and processors. Article 24 sets out
      the responsibility of controllers for taking appropriate steps to ensure

      and be able to demonstrate that processing is compatible with the GDPR.
                                       4                                                                    •

                                                                   I  C      O     .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
       Articles 28-29 make separate provision for the processing of data by
       processors, under the instructions of the controller.


The Commissioner's Powers of Enforcement


 15.   The Commissioner is the supervisory authority for the UK, as provided
       for by Article 51 of the GDPR.


 16.   By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner's task to monitor
       and enforce the application of the GDPR.


 17.   By Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR the Commissioner has the power to
       notify controllers of alleged infringements of GDPR. By Article 58(2)(i)

       he has the power to impose an administrative fine, in accordance with
       Article 83, in addition to or instead of the other corrective measures
       referred to in Article 58(2), depending on the circumstances of each
       individual case.


 18.   By Article 83(1), the Commissioner is required to ensure that
       administrative fines issued in accordance with Article 83 are effective,

       proportionate, and dissuasive in each individual case. Article 83(2) goes
       on to provide that:


                   "When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine
                   and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in
                   each individual case due regard shall be given to the
                   following:


                         (a)   the  nature,   gravity  and    duration  of   the

                                       5                                         •

                                        I  C     O      .
                                        Information Commissioner's Office
infringement taking into account the nature scope or
purpose of the processing concerned as well as the

number of data subjects affected and the level of
damage suffered by them;


(b) the intentional or negligent character of the
infringement;


(c) any action taken by the controller or processor to
mitigate the damage suffered by data subjects;


(d) the degree of responsibility of the controller or
processor   taking   into  account    technical  and

organisational  measures    implemented    by  them
pursuant to Articles 25 and 32;


(e) any relevant previous infringements by the
controller or processor;


(f) the degree of cooperation with the supervisory
authority, in order to remedy the infringement and

mitigate   the  possible  adverse   effects  of  the
infringement;


(g) the categories of personal data affected by the
infringement;


(h) the manner in which the infringement became
known to the supervisory authority, in particular

              6                                                                    •
                                                                   I  C     O      .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
                         whether, and if so to what extent, the controller or
                         processor notified the infringement;


                         (i) where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have

                         previously been ordered against the controller or
                         processor concerned with regard to the same subject
                         matter, compliance with those measures;


                         (j) adherence to approved codes of conduct pursuant

                         to Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms
                         pursuant to Article 42; and


                         (k)  any other aggravating or mitigating factor
                         applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as
                         financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or

                         indirectly, from the infringement."


 19.   Article 83(5) GDPR provides,     inter alia, that infringements of the
       obligations imposed by Article 5 GDPR on the controller and processer
       will, in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR, be subject to administrative

       fines of up to €20 million or, in the case of an undertaking, up to 4% of
       its total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year,
       whichever is higher.


 20.   The DPA contains enforcement provisions in Part 6 which are exercisable
       by the Commissioner   2•Section 155 of the DPA sets out the matters to

       which the Commissioner must have regard when deciding whether to


2Section 115 DPA establishes that the Commissioner is the UK's supervisory authority for the purposes
of the GDPR.
                                       7                                                                   •

                                                                   I  C     O      .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
      issue a penalty notice and when determining the amount of the penalty
      and provides that:


                  "(1) I f the Commissioner is satisfied that a person-


                         (a) has failed or is failing as described in section
                         149(2) ...,


                         the Commissioner may, by written notice (a "penalty
                         notice"),  require   the  person    to  pay    to  the
                         Commissioner an amount in sterling specified in the

                         notice.


                  (2) Subject to subsection (4), when deciding whether to give
                  a penalty notice to a person and determining the amount of
                  the penalty, the Commissioner must have regard to the
                  following, so far as relevant-


                         (a) to the extent that the notice concerns a matter to
                         which the GDPR applies,   the matters listed in Article

                         83(1) and (2) of the GDPR."

21.   The failures identified in section 149(2) DPA 2018 are, insofar as relevant

      here:

                  "(2) The first type offailure is where a controller or
                  processor has failed, or is failing, to comply with any of the

                  following-


                                       8                                                                    •
                                                                    I  C     O      .
                                                                    Information Commissioner's Office
                          (a) a provision of Chapter II of the GDPR or Chapter 2
                          of Part 3 or Chapter 2 of Part 4 of this Act (principles

                          of processing);


                          .,.

                          (c) a provision of Articles 25 to 39 of the GDPR or

                          section 64 or 65 of this Act (obligations of controllers
                          and processors) [...] "


 22.   Schedule 16 includes provisions relevant to the imposition of penalties.
       Paragraph 2  makes provision for the issuing of notices of intent to impose
       a penalty, as follows:


                   "(1)   Before  giving   a  person   a  penalty   notice,  the

                   Commissioner must, by written notice (a "notice of intent")
                   inform the person that the Commissioner intends to give a
                   penalty notice."


The Commissioner's Regulatory Action Policy


 23.   Pursuant to section 160(1) DPA, the Commissioner published his

       Regulatory Action Policy ("RAP") on 7   November 2018.

 24.   The process the Commissioner will follow in deciding the appropriate

       amount of penalty to be imposed is described in the RAP from page 27
       onwards. In particular, the RAP sets out the following five-step process:


          a. Step  1. An 'initial element' removing any financial gain from the

                                        9                                                                  •

                                                                  I  C     O      .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
             breach.
          b. Step 2. Adding in an element to censure the breach based on its

             scale and   severity, taking into account the considerations
             identified at section 155(2) - (4) DPA.
          c. Step 3. Adding in an element to reflect any aggravating factors. A
             list of aggravating factors which the Commissioner would take into

             account, where relevant, is provided at page 11 of the RAP. This
             list is intended to be indicative, not exhaustive.
          d. Step 4. Adding in an amount for deterrent effect to others.
          e. Step 5. Reducing  the amount (save that in the initial element) to

             reflect any mitigating factors, including ability to pay (financial
             hardship). A  list of mitigating factors which the Commissioner
             would take into account, where relevant, is provided at page 11-

             12 of the RAP. This list is intended to be indicative, not exhaustive.

Circumstances of the Failure: Facts


General Background


 25.   This Penalty Notice does not purport to identify exhaustively each and
       every circumstance and document relevant to the Commissioner's
       investigation. The circumstances and  documents identified below are a

       proportionate summary.


 26.   Easylife is a company based which sells household products through
       catalogues. The brand was founded in 1992, Easylife was incorporated
       on 3 September 2004 (at that date "Easylife Group Limited"). Easylife
       has one active  director registered at Companies House, Mr Gregory

       Grant Caplan, who is the Chief Executive Officer. Mr Caplan is also a
       director of "Easylife Holdings Limited", which is registered as a person

                                      10                                                                    •
                                                                    I  C     O      .
                                                                    Information Commissioner's Office
       of significant control of Easylife.


Discovery and Reporting of the Breach


 27.   The Information Commissioner's Office ("ICO") conducted
      -       due to the potential of direct marketing aimed at exploiting the

       Covid-19 pandemic, which led to an investigation into
      -         ( ' ' - " ) , a telemarketing company promoting funeral plans
       during the pandemic. This is turn led the Commissioner to investigate

       Easylife, because -      conducted   outbound calling for Easylife. The
       Commissioner's investigation   into Easylife initially concerned potential
       contraventions of the PECR, and that initial investigation raised concerns

       of potential contraventions of the GDPR, which the Commissioner then
       investigated separately.


 28.   The Easylife Health telemarketing campaign was conducted by a third
       party                ("1111"). The "trigger products" consisted of 122

       different items sold in the Easylife catalogue. Once an individual had
       purchased one   of the trigger products from Easylife itself, this would
       trigger a marketing call to the individual b y - using the data of which

       Easylife was the controller. Easylife linked the trigger products to several
       health conditions which Easylife inferred that the customer was likely to
       have, which Easylife would then use as an opportunity to attempt to sell
       the individual health supplement products which were alleged to help the

       inferred health issues. Easylife explained that the selection of an
       individualto receive a marketing call was based solely on transactional
       data and that the data was provided to the call centre operated by -

       on a weekly basis, with the selection of which individuals would receive
       calls made on the basis of what products they had previously purchased.
       Easylife stated  that individuals who had previously opted out of


                                       11                                                                  •

                                                                  I  C     O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
      marketing calls were removed from the call lists.


29.   Easylife provided the ICO with marketing scripts selling glucosamine,
      Cannabidiol, prostaphytol patches and bio-magnetic joint patches.
      Easylife explained that the majority of the calls made during the relevant
      period had been targeted at individuals who had been inferred to have

      arthritis, for instance, a purchase of one of 80 of the 122 trigger products
      would lead Easylifeto infer that the customer had arthritis who may then
      call to sell them glucosamine patches. Glucosamine is a supplement
      which is allegedly therapeutic for individuals with arthritis. The wording

      of the calling scripts was clearly targeted to individuals with the health
      conditions which Easylife was inferring. For example, the sales calls
      marketing glucosamine to data subjects inferred to have arthritis said:


            "Good morning, may I speak to XYZ please - Good morning my
            name is XYZ and I am one of the Health Advisors giving you a

            quick call from Easy Life. It is just a quick call as you ordered
            recently one of our _ _ _ _ . Can I ask, did you order it to help
            with arthritis in the - - ~ or is it an injury to the _ _ ? "


30.   The script then posed questions about the arthritis, such as how long the
      individual had had it, its location, the manifestation of symptoms, and
      its effects on the individual. Then a sales pitch commenced:


            "So do you mind if I make a simply suggestion? Many people who
            suffer with Arthritis   will wear Glucosamine Joint Patches.

            Glucosamine is a  natural ingredient that our own bodies produce
            up to the age of 30, then as we get older our bones are less
            protected and through wear and tear over the years, the bones


                                     12                                                                   •

                                                                  I  C      O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
            and joints start to grind together which is the main cause ofpain,
            swelling and stiffness."


31.   The Commissioner became concerned that using data about purchasing
      transactions in order to make inferences about health conditions could
      constitute profiling, and the inferences made about health conditions

      could indicate processing of special category data. A sale of glucosamine
      patches  to an individual who had previously ordered a trigger product
      from which Easylife had inferred that the individual probably had arthritis
      was therefore ostensibly linked to the success of the profiling which

      Easylife had undertaken.

32.   The transactional purchase data   of Easylife's customers was personal
      data. When Easylife used      that transactional data to influence its

      decisions on which customers to subject to telemarketing, this
      constituted profiling. When Easylife used the transactional data to
      influence its decisions on which products to market to which customers,
      based on its inferences about a health condition which they were likely

      to have, that constituted the processing of special category data,
      irrespective of the level of statistical confidence which Easylife had in the
      profiling which it had done.


33.   Easylife relied on its ownlegitimate interests as the basis for conducting
      this processing, using a small section of the Easylife privacy policy which

      stated how personal data would be used:

            "How will we use the information we collect about you?


            We will do the following with your personal information.
               •  Store and use it to fulfil any order or service you've

                                      13                                                                   •

                                                                  I  C      O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
                  ordered from.
               •  Maintain is as evidence of your history with us.

               •  *Keep you informed about the status of your orders and
                  provide updates or information about associated products
                  or additional products, services, or promotions that might
                  be of interest to you.

               •  *Notify you of any product recalls or provide other
                  information concerning products you have purchased.
               •  *Improve and develop the products or services we offer by
                  analysing your information.

               •  *As customers or subscribers, we will sent you our
                  catalogues and information by post or email and may
                  telephone offering services or products."


34.   Individuals were not informed by Easylife that their information would
      be used for profiling them. Article 13 of GDPR requires data controllers
      to inform individuals of the type of processing which will occur. Easylife

      did not put in place the steps necessary to allow them to process
      transactional sales data for the purposes of inferring health data and
      then making targeted marketing calls for the purpose of selling items

      which Easylife had decided were relevant to the inferred health
      condition.


35.   Easylife stated that no inferred health data was stored against any
      individual because only transactional data was and that legitimate
      interest assessments ("LIAs") had been carried out for the telephone
      marketing campaigns. Easylife stated that the marketing campaign

      included some calls intended  to sell face masks during the pandemic.


36.   Easylife provided the Commissioner with a LIA, which it said had also

                                      14                                                                  •
                                                                  I  C     O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
       been provided to the Commissioner in 2019 in a previous unrelated

       investigation. The LIA focused generally on Easylife cards and clubs and
       was not specific to the Easylife Health campaign. The LIA document
       contained 15 "queries", either a positive or negative response, some

       guidance and a note on each query. Queries included, "Would processing
       involve special categories of personal data?" which Easylife had
       answered negatively, stating, "No these are generic offers available for

       all customers." In response to the query, "Would customers expect their
       data to be used for this purpose?", Easylife had answered affirmatively
       on the basis that they had informed individuals of the purpose in their

       privacy policy. Easylife should have been aware from the LIA that the
       Health campaign would not be compliant with the GDPR, because it had
       asked itself questions which, if answered accurately, would have

       revealed the contravention. Easylife relied on an LIA which related to a
       different marketing campaign, which did not involve profiling customers,
       as the basis for the Health campaign, which did involve profiling
       customers.



 37.   The data processing agreement between Easylife and -           covered
       confidentiality, security, sub-contracting and termination but omitted
       any reference to the type of data processing which would occur.


Reporting the Breach to the Information Commissioner


 38.   One   hundred   and   forty-five thousand,   four  hundred   (145,400)

       individuals were profiled for inferred health conditions. Zero complaints
       were made to the ICO, although this was unsurprising to the
       Commissioner because the contraventions involved invisible processing
       about which    Easylife  never informed    the  individuals,  with  the

       consequence that the individuals could not know that processing of their

                                      15                                                                   •

                                                                   I  C     O     .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
       personal data and their special category data was occurring without a
       proper basis.


The Commissioner's Investigation


 39.   Given the seriousness of its concerns in regard to the potential
       contraventions of the GDPR by Easylife, the ICO sent Easylife an initial
       investigation  letter on  12 March     2021. The letter detailed the

       Commissioner's concerns in regard to the processing which was
       occurring and, in the light of the Commissioner's view that Easylife was
       processing special category data without a legal basis, the Commissioner
       also instructed Easylife to immediately stop the activity.


 40.   Easylife responded with an undated letter, which the Commissioner
       received on 1 April 2021, stating that the Health campaign had started

       in December 2016.    It reiterated that 257,490 calls had been made,
       which included repeat calls and repeat sales, but did not explain how
       that figure correlated to the processing of data. The call figure provided
       by Easylife differed from the number of calls which the ICO discovered

       for the Health campaign through call detail records ("CDRs") obtained.

 41.   Easylife explained the sequence of processing as follows:


             "(i) A person buys some  products from Easylife Limited in one of

             three ways: (i) by placing an order on line at our website
             easylife.co.uk, (ii) by sending by post an order form cut out from
             the back of one of our catalogues (see the example form annexed
             to this letter) or (iii) by calling our call centre and placing an order

             by phone.

                                      16                                                                   •

                                                                  I  C      O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office

            (ii) The customer's personal data is entered on to our CRM
            system. This personal data includes the customer's contact details
            as well as details of their order.


            (iii) This information   is  then   shared    with  a   third-party
            telemarketing    company    called -
            ( '._ - " ) with whom we have a data processing agreement. It is

            provided to them weekly by our Data Management Company.
            -    sell, onbehalfof Easylife Limited, to the data provided, non
            medical lifestyle beneficial products that are relevant to the
            customer's transactional history.


            ( i v ) - s t o r e the data we provide to them on their secure server.
            They selectpeople to call based on a multitude offactors including
            the date of the last order placed, frequency of making purchases,
            product purchased; currently and on historically and value of
            orders placed. They also look at a customer's transaction history

            to identify whether (or not) they have purchased particular
            products.

            (v) The selected people are then called with a view to selling them

            relevant products based on the factors outlined in (iv) above."

42.   Easylife maintained that its consent statement was relevant:


            "As customers or subscribers, we will send you our catalogues and
            information by post or email and may telephone offering services
            or products such as our Health, Motor, Supercard, or Gardening

                                      17                                                                   •
                                                                  I  C      O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
            Clubs. I f you would prefer not to receive these communications
            please let us know (see below) or simply unsubscribe from any of

            the communications you receive at the time."


43.   Easylife stated that a former employee, who had previously been a
                                , had advised it that the consent statement was
      a sufficient basis  for the sales activity carried out by -        to be

      compliant. Further, Easylife said that it had a vulnerable persons policy
      underpinning the sales calls because many customers were elderly and
      were "often glad to talk to someone about their medical conditions". The

      calls, Easylife said, were quickly terminated if there was the slightest
      hint of embarrassment from the customer regarding their health
      condition, but, as most were elderly, they welcomed the conversation.


44.   Easylife informed the ICO that it had now in s tr u c te d - to cease the
      processing and that in future it would stop the profiling element of the

      Health telephone marketing campaign and would instead telephone
      customers irrespective  of whether or not the customer had purchased a
      trigger product. Further, as a result of the ICO's investigation relating to the

      PECR, Easylife was now screening calls against the TPS register. Easylife
      and -     offered  to enter into written undertakings with the ICO to
      confirm their new operating procedure.


45.   The ICO declined the proffered undertakings.


46.   The ICO's investigation revealed no evidence that Easylife had informed
      individuals that their data might be used for health profiling. Easylife had

      not informed the ICO how many individual customers it had profiled, and
      had  simply provided call figures and stated that some of the calls had
      related to the sale of face masks.

                                      18                                                                 •

                                                                I  C     O      .
                                                                Information Commissioner's Office


47.   On 12 April 2021, the ICO asked Easylife to provide a definitive number
      of how many individuals had been profiled during the marketing
      campaign specific to the sale of health supplements.


48.   In an undated letter which the ICO received on 19 April 2021 Easylife
      explained that it had provided 428,531 individuals' data t o- between

      1 August 2019 and 19 August 2020. This data was then "reviewed and
      cleaned down" to 145,400 individuals' data, based on a multitude of
      factors including "date of the last order placed, frequency of making
      purchases, product purchased currently and on historical orders and

      value of orders placed". Easylife then stated that a total of 257,490
      attempted calls were made to those individuals.


49.   Given  that one factor was purchase of a trigger product, the ICO
      considered that Easylife had profiled 145,400 individuals.


50.   On 13 May 2021, the ICO wrote to inform Easylife that the investigation
      had concluded.


51.   On 10 August 2022, the Commissioner issued Easylife with a Notice of
      Intent to issue a monetary penalty. The Notice related to the facts set
      out above, and concerned non-compliance with the GDPR by way of

      unlawful processing of special category data.

52.   On 2 September 2022, Easylife submitted Representations ("the

      Representations") to the Commissioner, making a range of legal and
      factual arguments, accompanied by documentary evidence.            The
      Commissioner has considered    the Representations in making his final
      decision inthis case.

                                     19                                                                    •

                                                                   I  C      O     .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office

Personal Data Involved in the Incident

 53.   The data affected by this incident comprised the personal data of

       145,400 individual customers of Easylife, consisting of their names and
       telephone numbers, and the special category data of those 145,400
       individuals, consisting of health conditions which Easylife had inferred
       that they probably had.


The Contravention of Article S (l)(a ) of the GDPR

 54.   The Commissioner has considered whether the facts set out above
       constitute a contravention of the data protection legislation.


 55.   For the reasons set out below, the Commissioner has taken the view
       from his investigation that this breach occurred as a result of serious
       deficiencies in the way in which Easylife collected, processed and used
       the personal and special category data of 145,400 individuals.


Factors relevant to whether a penalty is appropriate, and if so, the
amount of the penalty


 56.   The Commissioner has considered the factors set out in Article 83(2) of
       the GDPR in deciding whether to issue a penalty. For the reasons given
       below, he is satisfied that (i) the contraventions are sufficiently serious
       to justify issuing a penalty in addition to exercising his corrective
       powers; and (ii) the contraventions are serious enough to justify a

       significant fine.


                                       20                                                                  •

                                                                  I  C     O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
(a)   the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement taking into
account the nature, scope or purpose of the processing concerned as
well as the number of data subjects affected and the level of damage

suffered by them

Nature:


57.   Easylife conducted profiling of customers which processed special
      category data. The Commissioner does not accept Easylife's arguments
      set out in the Representations that it was not processing special category

      data.

58.   The Commissioner does   not consider that the evidence supports Easylife's
      argument  that it was selling lifestyle products and did not make or use

      inferences about the data subjects' health. The Commissioner has decided
      that the transactional data from which Easylife made and relied on
      inferences was special category data, which Easylife unlawfully processed.
      Easylife used the transactional data to infer that the customer probably

      had a particular health condition, to alleviate which specific products were
      then marketed to the data subject, in direct marketing telephone calls.

59.   The Commissioner considers that his guidance on special category data

      properly reflects the laon the inference of special category data.

60.   The recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union inOT v
      Vyriausioji tarnybines etikos komisija (Case C-184/20, 1 August 2022)

      confirms that the protections which the GDPR gives to data subjects'
      special category data, including health data, extend beyond inherently
      sensitive data to cover data revealing health data indirectly, following
      an intellectual operation involving deduction and cross-referencing.


                                     21                                                                   •

                                                                  I  C      O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
61.   Article 9 of the GDPR provides that special category data may not be
      processed except under specific circumstances. The only circumstances
      in which Easylife could have engaged in processing of special category
      data in the context of its Health campaign was consent. Easylife did not

      collect consent to process special category data, instead relying on
      legitimate interest. As a result, Easylife had no lawful basis to process
      the data and contravened Article 6 and Article 9 of the GDPR.
      Furthermore, the individuals were not informed that any profiling of

      special category data would occur and therefore the individuals could not
      have reasonably expected it to happen. Easylife conducted invisible
      processing of special category data, and, as such, Easylife did not
      process the data fairly, lawfully or transparently as required by Article
      S(l)(a) of the GDPR.


62.   In order to process this data lawfully, Easylife would have had to collect
      explicit consent for the profiling from the data subjects and to update its

      privacy policy to indicate that special category data was to be processed
      by consent. Easylife's omission to do this resulted in the contravention
      occurring and also involved a contravention of Article 13(1)(c) of the
      GDPR, which required Easylife to provide a data subject with a privacy

      notice which informs them of the purposes of the processing for which
      the personal data are intended as well as the legal basis for the
      processing.

63.   The Commissioner does not accept Easylife's argument, made in the

      Representations, that it had the requisite consent to process special
      category data because it had notified customers that it would be using
      customers' personal data to notify them of products "that might be of
      interest to you." The Commissioner does not consider that any customer
      would have understood the privacy policy to mean that Easylife was going

      to process their special category data and then use it in a direct marketing
                                      22                                                                   •

                                                                   I  C     O     .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
       telephone campaign.


 64.   According   to  the  evidence   which   Easylife  provided  during   the
       investigation, the contravention resulted in several hundred thousand
       attempted marketing calls being made to individuals whom Easylife had
       profiled as having health conditions. These calls were intrusive in nature

       because they were based on health conditions which Easylife had
       inferred whilst not having informed the individuals that it was going to
       make such inferences.


Gravity:


 65.   The contravention is serious because it consisted of unlawful invisible
       processing  of special category data and because of the distress to

       individuals which resulted from it.

 66.   Easylife's target market was older people with long-term health

       conditions. Individuals in that age range, who grew up in a previous era
       in which electronic processing of personal data did not occur, are less
       likely than younger individuals to have the knowledge or ability to raise

       a complaint about unlawful processing of their data.

 67.   Itis not possible for the ICO to quantify the level of damage caused,

       because of the invisible nature of the processing by Easylife. The damage
       from harassment and targeting of potentially vulnerable individuals could
       be wide-ranging, not least financial damage.


Number of data subjects:



                                      23                                                                •

                                                                I  C     O     .
                                                                Information Commissioner's Office
 68.   Easylife collected, processed and used the personal and special category
       data of 145,400 individuals.


Duration:

 69.  The contravention continued for over a year, between 1 August 2019

      and 19  August 2020.


 (b)   the intentional or negligent character of the infringement

 70.  The Commissioner considers that the contraventions were negligent

       because Easylife appeared unaware that it was processing special
      category data. Nevertheless, Easylife has a poor track record of
       regulatory compliance, having previously been investigated by the
       Commissioner for data protection concerns in 2019, having entered an

       undertaking with Trading Standards, and having been subject to an
       investigation byhe Commissioner into contravention of the PECR which
       ledto his investigation into compliance with the GDPR. Therefore, the
       negligence underpinning the breach is severe. Easylife should have

       known that the breach would occur, given that it had previously
      completed LIAs intended to avoid such contraventions in other marketing
      campaigns, which explicitly referred to special category datItappears
      that Easylife misapplied the LIA which had been devised for a different

       marketing campaign to the Health campaign and thus failed to take the
      opportunity to interrogate Easylife's legitimate interests in the Health
      campaign and   to understand what steps would have been required in
      order to conduct the Health campaign in compliance with the GDPR.





                                     24                                                                  •

                                                                 Information Commissioner's Office
(c)   any action taken by the controller or processor to mitigate the

damage suffered by data subjects


71.   Upon receiving notice from the Commissioner that he believed Easylife
      was   processing  special  category   data,  Easylife agreed   to  stop

      immediately such profiling and required -          to stop the Health
      campaign in its current format, and to continue the campaign without
      the element of profiling. Easylife informed the Commissioner that it

      would work on several remedial measures, namely:


            (i)      Implementation    of   a  new    Customer
                     Relationship Management   system;


            (ii)     Strengthening    its  Service  Level   Agreements
                     and contracts with data processors;


            (iii)    Introducing TPS screening to comply with the PECR;

            (iv)     Changing the wording of the consent statements offered

                     to customers.


72.   Although Easylife agreed to stop the profiling, the Commissioner noted
      that Easylife has been very reactive in its approach to compliance and
      only seems to make changes to its practices in order to comply with the

      law when failings are discovered, and changes are required, by a
      regulator.







                                     25                                                                •

                                                                I  C     O     .
                                                                Information Commissioner's Office
(d)   the degree of responsibility of the controller or processor taking
into account technical and organisational measures implemented by
them pursuant to Articles 25 and 32


73.   Article 25 of the GDPR requires organisations to implement data
      protection by both design and default. Data protection by design

      necessitates the consideration of privacy and data protection at the
      design phase of any system, service,       product or process (and
      subsequently throughout its lifecycle). Data protection by default
      requires organisations to ensure that they only process data necessary

      to achieve a specified purpose.


74.   With regard to Easylife's compliance with the above article, it is the
      Commissioner's view that Easylife's failure to conduct a Data Protection
      Impact Assessment ("DPIA") is a notable failing, and that such a step
      may have assisted in preventing this contravention.


75.   Article 32 of the GDPR requires organisations to implement appropriate
      technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security

      appropriate to the risks presented by their processing; to include the
      potential impacts these risks may have on the rights and freedoms of
      natural persons.


76.   The Commissioner does not consider that Article 32 is relevant to its
      failure.


(e)   any   relevant   previous   infringements     by the controller or
processor



                                    26                                                                •

                                                               I  C     O     .
                                                               Information Commissioner's Office
77.   Not applicable.


(f)   the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, in
order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse
effects of the infringement


78.   Easylife have co-operated reasonably with the ICO. Upon receiving the
      ICO's investigation department's views in regard to the contravention,
      Easylife sought to mitigate the risk of profiling by completely ceasing
      that activity. Easylife also sought to remedy its non-compliance with the

      PECR which was established during the ICO's investigation into the
      contravention of the PECR, which had led the ICO to open its
      investigation into contravention of the GDPR.


(g)   the categories of personal data affected by the infringement

79.   The categories of personal data affected is set out above at paragraph

      52 above and include special category data relating to health.

(h)   the manner in which the infringement became known to the

supervisory authority, in particular whether, and if so to what extent,
the controller or processor notified the infringement


80.   The infringement of the GDPR by Easylife became known to the ICO
      during the course of the ICO's own investigation into potential
      contraventions of the PECR. Easylife was ignorant of the infringement
      until it became known to Easylife through notification by the ICO.


81.   Zero complaints were made to the ICO because the contraventions

                                    27                                                                •

                                                                I  C     O     .
                                                                Information Commissioner's Office
       involved invisible processing about which Easylife never informed the
       individuals, with the consequence that the individuals could not know
       that processing of their personal data and their special category data

       was occurring without a proper basis.

(i)    where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously

been ordered against the controller or processor concerned with
regard to the same subject-matter, compliance with those measures


 82.   Not applicable.


(j)    adherence to approved codes of conduct pursuant to Article 40
or approved certification mechanisms pursuant to Article 42


 83.   Not applicable.

(k)    any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the
circumstances of the case, such as financial benefits gained, or losses

avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement


 84.   The Commissioner has considered the following aggravating feature
       in this case:


            •  The aim of the Health marketing campaign was to use the
               unlawful processing to gain an advantage over rival businesses
               and sell targeted products to individuals.


 85.   The  Commissioner    took  into  account the   following  mitigating

       features:
                                     28                                                                    •

                                                                    I  C     O      .
                                                                    Information Commissioner's Office

             •  Easylife has informed the ICO of its intention to:


                   -  Implement a new Customer Relationship Management
                       system at the cost o    f  -  ·


                   -   Strengthen its Service Level Agreements and contracts
                       with data processors.


Summary and Penalty


 86.   For the reasons set out above, the Commissioner has decided to impose
       a financial penalty on Easylife. Taken together the findings above
       concerning the infringement, its likely impact, and the fact that Easylife

       failed to comply with its GDPR obligations, the Commissioner has
       decided to apply an effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalty
       reflecting the seriousness of the breach which has occurred.

Calculation of Penalty


 87.   The Commissioner considers that imposition of a financial penalty would
       be an effective and proportionate action to ensure future compliance,

       given that previous informal action has failed. A financial penalty would
       be dissuasive not only to Easylife but to the whole mail order catalogue
       industry.


 88.   The Commissioner considered that the appropriate penalty amount may
       be up to 4% of worldwide annual turnover.


                                       29                                                                  •
                                                                  I  C     O     .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
89.   Following the Five Step process set out in the RAP the calculation of the

      penalty is as follows.


90.   Step 1: An initial element removing any financial gain from the breach.
      The Commissioner has decided      to impose an administrative fine on
      Easylife because a large number of data subjects (145,400) have been

      affected; the incident involves special category data; there has been
      repeated or wilful misconduct or serious failures to take appropriate
      steps to protect personal data; there has been a failure to apply

      reasonable measures (including relating to privacy by design) to
      mitigate any breach; and it is highly likely that Easylife has benefited
      from a financial gain by committing the contravention.


91.   The Commissioner was unable to initially identify or calculate any

      financial gain which Easylife may have made from its contravention of
      the GDPR, and proceeded to determine the provisional penalty figure
      without imposing an initial element to remove any financial gain from

      the breach.

92.   The Commissioner has carefully considered the Representations made

      by Easylife on  the level of the financial penalty. In particular, the
      Commissioner has noted that Easylife has calculated that it made a
      profit of              during the relevant period from the activities of

     -      in  the  Health   telemarketing   campaign.   The   Commissioner
      acknowledges this disclosure, but does not amend his provisional
      decision not to impose an initial penalty amount removing any financial
      gain.


93.   Step 2: Adding in an element to censure the breach based on its scale

      and severity, taking into account the considerations identified at section

                                     30                                                                  •
                                                                 I  C     O      .
                                                                 Information Commissioner's Office
      155(2)-(4) DPA. This refers to and repeats the matters listed in A83(1)e
      and (2)as set out above.


94.   The details are set out above and take into account: (a) the matters set
      out above at paragraphs 54 - 85, (b) the matters referred to in this

      section, and (c) the need to apply an effective proportionate and
      dissuasive fine.


95.   Considering  the nature, gravity, and duration of the failure, the
      Commissioner finds that this breach involved the processing of special

      category data of 145,400 individuals who were profiled for inferred
      health conditions. Thegravity includes the impact on elderly, potentially
      vulnerable people, some with long-term health conditions. Easylife

      conducted invisible processing,  with assumptions being made about
      health conditions based on purchased goods. The Commissioner is
      concerned  about the on-going potential impact with regards to those
      individualswho may not be aware this is happening as they have not

      been adequately informed. The duration of the failure covered 12
      months.


96.   The Commissioner considers    that a penalty of £750,000 would be an
      appropriate starting point for its consideration under Step 2, before

      further adjustment within Step 2 and before adjustment in accordance
      with Steps 3-5 below.


97.   In light of the negligence of Easylife in omitting to obtain explicit consent
      to process the special category data, and given its attendance at a
      previous compliance meeting, the Commissioner considers it appropriate

      to increase the penalty starting point by £50,000 to £800,000.


                                     31                                                                   •

                                                                   I  C     O      .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
98.   He then considers it appropriate to decrease the penalty by £50,000 to
      £750,000 because of the action taken by Easylife to mitigate the damage or
      distress caused, specifically that Easylife has implemented a £200,000 CRM
      system, introduced improved SLAs and contracts with data processors,

      and worked on improving consent statements. Easylife has also stated
      to the Commissioner that it has ceased the practice of profiling
      individuals.


99.   The Commissioner increases the penalty by £100,000 to £850,000
      because of Easylife's responsibility taking into account technical and
      organisational measures which it should have implemented. Easylife
      conducted no data protection impact assessments as it should have done

      under Article 25 of the GDPR. Easylife instead relied on legitimate
      interests, misapplying an analysis which it had done in the past for a
      different marketing campaign which did not involve profiling.


100. The Commissioner has gone on to consider the following relevant factors
      but does not consider in this case that they should result in a change to
      the figure of £850,000:


                      any relevant previous failures by the controller or
                      processor;


                   -  the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, in
                      order to remedy the failure and mitigate the possible
                      adverse effects of the failure;


                   -  the categories of personal data affected by the failure;

                   -  the manner in which the infringement became known to

                                      32                                                                 •

                                                                 I  C     O     .
                                                                 Information Commissioner's Office
                     the Commissioner, including whether, and if so to what
                     extent,  the   controller  or  processor   notified  the
                     Commissioner of the failure;


                  -  the extent to which the controller or processor has
                     complied with previous enforcement notices or penalty
                     notices;


                  -  adherence  to approved codes of conduct or certification
                     mechanisms;

                  -  any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to

                     the case, including financial benefits gained, or losses
                     avoided, as a result of the failure (whether directly or
                     indirectly).


101. The Commissioner has then gone on to consider whether the penalty
      amount of £850,000 would be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.


102. The Commissioner considers that available accounts include accounts
      up to the period ending 31 December 2020 and show a turnover of
      £51,631,296. These accounts were filed at Companies House on 6
      October 2021. The next accounts due are scheduled to be filed by 29

      December 2022.


103. The Commissioner has considered    the financial documentation provided
      with the Representations from Easylife. In particular, he has considered
      the draft accounts for the year to December 2021, the management
      accounts for the first six months of 2022 and the administration

      documents concerning a key supplier of Easylife. The Commissioner also

                                     33                                                                 •

                                                                 I  C     O     .
                                                                 Information Commissioner's Office
      considered Easylife's arguments that it had an exceptionally profitable
      year in 2020 due the pandemic. The Commissioner noted that Easylife
      estimated turnover of around £26,000,000 for the year to December
      2022, which would be likely to incur a substantial loss, perhaps in
      excess of £2,000,000, and Easylife had concerns about increases in

      inflation, transportation costs, overheads and national insurance. The
      Commissioner also took account of an historic disputed claim against
      Easylifefrom a debtor in administration, which may still be payable by
      Easylife.


104. On the basis of the available information, the Commissioner does not
      consider that a penalty of £850,000 would be effective, proportionate
      or dissuasive and accordingly increases the penalty by £500,000 to

      £1,350,000.

105. This amount is considered appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the
      breach and takes into account in particular the need for the penalty to

      be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

106.  Step 3: Adding in an element to reflect any aggravating factors.

      Following his consideration of the aggravating factors set out above, the
      Commissioner considers no further aggravating factors had a material
      impact on the severity of the contravention and so does not increase the
      penalty amount from £1,350,000 at this step.


107.  Step 4: Adding an amount for deterrent effect to others.           The
      Commissioner considers that this requirement has already been
      addressed at Step 2, and accordingly does not propose to increase the
      penalty at this step.


                                     34                                                                  •

                                                                  I  C     O      .
                                                                  Information Commissioner's Office
 108. Step 5: Reducing the amount to reflect any mitigating factors including
       ability to pay. The Commissioner considered the most recently available
       financial evidence  at Step 2. Easylife was also invited to provide
       financial evidence in representations. The Commissioner has taken

       account of the Representations received from Easylife on 2 September
       2022 in regard to ability to pay a monetary penalty at Step 2. After
       considering all the evidence concerning Easylife's ability to pay, the
       Commissioner concluded that £1,350,000 remained an appropriate

       penalty amount.

The amount of the penalty


 109. For the reasons explained above, the Commissioner is satisfied that the
       conditions from the factors set out in Article 83(2) of the GDPR have
       been met in this case and that he has adopted fair procedure. 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
       Easylife onthis matter.

 110. In making his decision, the Commissioner has also had regard to the

       factors set out in s108(2)(b) of the Deregulation Act 2015; including:
       the nature and level of risks associated with non-compliance, including
       the risks to economic growth; the steps taken by the business to
       achieve compliance and reasons for its failure; the willingness and

       ability of the business to address non-compliance; the likely impact of
       the proposed intervention on the business, and the likely impact of the
       proposed intervention on the wider business community, both in terms
       of deterring non-compliance and economic benefits to legitimate
       businesses.


                                      35                                                                    •

                                                                   I  C      O     .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
 111. Taking into account all of the factors set out above, the Commissioner
       has decided  to impose a penalty on Easylife Limited of £1,350,000
       (one million, three hundred and fifty thousand pounds).


Conclusion


 112. The  monetary penalty must be paid to the Commissioner's office by
       BACS transfer or cheque by 4 November 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.

 113.  There is a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
       against:

            (a)   The imposition of the penalty; and/or,

            (b)   The amount of the penalty specified in the penalty notice

 114. Any notice  of appeal should be received by the Tribunal within 28 days
       of the date of this penalty notice.


 115. The Commissioner will    not take action to enforce a penalty unless:

         •  the period specified within the notice within which a penalty must
            be paid has expired and all or any of the penalty has not been

            paid;
         •  all relevant appeals against the penalty notice and any variation
            of it have either been decided or withdrawn; and
         •  the period for appealing against the penalty and any variation of

            it has expired


                                       36                                                                 •

                                                                 Information Commissioner's Office
 116. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable by
       Order of the County Court or the High Court. In Scotland, the 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.

 117. Your attention is drawn to Annex 1 to this Notice, which sets out details
       of your rights of appeal under s.162 DPA 2018.

Dated the 4 thday of October 2022.

Andy Curry
Head of Investigations
Wycliffe Housemmissioner's Office
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9shSAF
















                                     37                                                                   •

                                                                   I  C     O     .
                                                                   Information Commissioner's Office
ANNEX 1


        Rights of appeal against decisions of the Commissioner

1.    Section 162 of the Data Protection Act 2018 gives any person upon
      whom a penalty notice or variation notice has been served a right of

      appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (the 'Tribunal')
      against the notice.

2.    Ifyou 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 she 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:


            GRC  & GRP Tribunals
            PO  Box 9300
            31 Waterloo Way
            Leicester
            LEl 8DJ

            Telephone: 0203 936 8963
            Email:      grc@justice.gov.uk
                                      38                                                                      •

                                                                      I  C      O     .
                                                                      Information Commissioner's Office

      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)     Ifyour 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 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 and the
             reason why the notice of appeal was not provided in time.



                                        39                                                                  •
                                                                 I  C     O      .
5.    Before deciding whether or not to appeal you may wish to consult yourn Commissioner's Office
      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
      (General Regulatory Chamber) are contained in sections 162 and 163
      of, and Schedule 16 to, the Data Protection Act 2018, and Tribunal
      Procedure  (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules
      2009 (Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 1976 (L.20))




















                                     40