Subject Access Request / ET

[ETFarce]

I did an SAR with my ex employer. They failed to supply all my employee records. I complained to the Information Commissioner's Office . The employer told them they had supplied all the information I requested and gave them a list of the information the had supplied. Based on that list the Information Commissioner's Office deemed the employer had supplied all the requested information and had therefore complied with the SAR.

Fast forward 12 months to Employment Tribunal. Employer relied on training records which they had never disclosed to me through the SAR, and which they failed to disclose to the ET; they simply made their existence known and used them to justify dismissal!


If those training records exist (which I can tell you they dont as I never did the training they relate to) that means the employer failed to comply with the SAR and lied to the Information Commissioner's Office when they stated they had given them to me - the records do not appear on the list of information I was given.

If those training records dont exist (which they dont) that means the employer lied to the Employment Tribunal when they stated I had done the training (this was a deciding factor at ET).

Either way, the employer lied to someone and it can be shown that they did.

Its too late to bring this up with ET as that window has long passed, but would the Information Commissioner's Office act on this or simply not be interested?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Subject Access Request / ET

.......
Either way, the employer lied to someone and it can be shown that they did.

Its too late to bring this up with ET as that window has long passed, but would the Information Commissioner's Office act on this or simply not be interested?

My experience with the Information Commissioner has consistently been that if the investigator is lied to, by in my case a public body, to gain an advantage, then the investigating case officer has no discretion but to accept what he is told.

[ETFarce]

Re: Subject Access Request / ET

My experience with the Information Commissioner has consistently been that if the investigator is lied to, by in my case a public body, to gain an advantage, then the investigating case officer has no discretion but to accept what he is told.

I accept that in the absence of any evidence an investigating officer would have to accept what he is told, but what can they do or will they do when evidence turns up at a later date which shows the officer was lied to? Surely there has to be some action they can take in such a situation or everyone would take the chance and lie to them?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Subject Access Request / ET

I accept that in the absence of any evidence an investigating officer would have to accept what he is told, but what can they do or will they do when evidence turns up at a later date which shows the officer was lied to? Surely there has to be some action they can take in such a situation or everyone would take the chance and lie to them?

It sounds negative but the Information Commissioner is required to make a judgement on the balance of probabilities and that gives them a lot of flexibility to justify dismissing allegations. Also, even if they agree with you they would probably find some statutory reason why they can't review the matter such as it's out of time or it is no longer issue which the law allows them investigate. However, if you have evidence then there's nothing to lose by presenting it to them except your time.