Not upheld: Data Subject Access Request handling - timescale compliance and delivery format complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Barclays failed to meet the correct timescales for processing his Data Subject Access Request and only provided a physical copy when he was entitled to an electronic copy. Barclays initially rejected the January 2025 DSAR as a duplicate of a 2024 request, but Mr S appealed and Barclays acknowledged the appeal on 12 February 2025. Barclays attempted to send the data electronically on 1 March 2025 but encountered technical difficulties, subsequently attempting delivery via secure email and cloud upload before sending a physical copy by post on 11 March 2025. The ombudsman found that Barclays made reasonable and timely attempts to fulfill the request within the one-month ICO guideline and made multiple efforts to deliver electronically despite technical obstacles, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied ICO guidelines which require DSARs to be responded to within one calendar month. The ombudsman determined that the one-month period should start from 10 February 2025 when Mr S appealed the duplicate rejection, as Barclays needed legitimate justification from Mr S to proceed. Barclays attempted to send the data on 1 March 2025 (within the one-month period) and made multiple reasonable attempts to deliver it electronically despite technical obstacles. The ombudsman found no clear or obvious error by Barclays and noted that Barclays continued to make reasonable efforts to send the data electronically after the one-month period expired. The ombudsman acknowledged the frustration but concluded Barclays acted reasonably in attempting to fulfill the request in the format requested.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website