(General Regulatory Chamber)
Information Rights
B e f o r e :
____________________
ROBERT BRIALEY |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER |
Respondent |
____________________
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Decision: The proceedings are struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 because there is no reasonable prospect of the application, or part of it, succeeding.
FT/EA/2025/0060/GDPR; FT/EA/2025/0105/GDPR; and FT/EA/2025/0138/GDPR.
Applicant's Requests
The applicant requests full details of all alterations and amendments which have been made to his protected person relevant pension rights since being made compulsorily redundant on the 26th March 1994 in both the BRPS and the RPS.
Without prejudice to the generality thereof it is submitted that this would include the following:
(1) Purported omission of the right of arbitration in articles 13 and 14 the Protection Order by section 245(7) of the Transport Act 2000.
(2) Alteration by the Trustees of the Incapacity provisions.
(3) Whether the statutory override regarding scheme members with protected persons status in the Pensions Bill 2013/14 regarding the introduction of a single-tier State Pension, replacing the current two-tier state pension, for future pensioners from April 2016 has been applied so far as the applicant as a railway protected person is concerned.
(4) Increasing the minimum age of entitlement to deferred benefits to over age 50.
(5) Increase in normal retirement age.
(6) Changing the Index of Retail Prices to the Consumer Prices Index.
(7) Alleged breach of the Delegation Provisions in the Pension Trust.
(8) Withdrawal of staff travel facilities on being made compulsorily redundant.
(9) Denial of relevant pension rights because the effective date of the Protection Order was after the date that the applicant was made compulsorily redundant notwithstanding that the provisions in the Protection Order are applicable from the date of the Railways Act 1993 having specific regard to Schedule 11 paragraphs 6(3) (a) and (b) and that by virtue of the same the applicant is a protected person with relevant pension rights and also, that the Transfer Order allocated the applicant to the RPS which incorporated the Protection Order.
This DSAR stems from the fact that the applicant is not aware of the information concerning his protected person relevant pension rights provisions the subject of this request.
Correspondence has been received from the Scheme advising of the enactment of Section 245(7) of the Transport Act 2000 and requiring its application.
The applicant requests full details of any involvement by the Scheme regarding the enactment of Section 245(7) of the Transport Act 2000
The applicant protected person relevant pension rights as detailed above have not been applied in respect of his pension scheme benefits since they were enacted and the applicant therefore requests the Trustee to:
(1) fully explain the reason why.
(2) detail when such provisions will be applied in respect of his scheme benefits.
(3) fully explain how it is proposed to make good all losses to the applicant including the payment of interest arising out of or in connection with the same.
(4) confirm that it will be determined which members of the pension scheme are responsible for the failure to apply the protected person relevant pension rights provisions.
(5) confirm whether any persons the subject of the above will be held personally accountable for the same and, if not, why not, having specific regard to the provisions in the pension scheme.
The respondent should be fully conversant with all of the statutory provisions and documentation concerning the RPS and has contended that the statutory relevant pension right to arbitration has been omitted and that complaints should be submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman.
As detailed above it is alleged that section 245(7) is contrary to and in breach of the following:
(1) The assurance given by the Secretary of State regarding the allocation of provisions to accord with the Acquired Rights Directive during the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill having specific regard to item 6 thereof.
(2) Paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 11 of the Railways Act 1993.
(3) Paragraphs 3(3) and 6(2) of Schedule 11 of the Railways Act 1993.
(4) Articles 1(2) definition of relevant pension rights, 6(1) and 8(1) of the Protection Order.
(5) Railways Pension Scheme clauses 2B, 2D, 2G, 7H, 13C(iii) and 13C(iv).
The applicant requests the respondent to advise the basis on which it considers that the right to arbitration has been omitted contrary to and in breach of all of the above and that complaints should be submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman.
The ICO's Reply
a) The Applicant submitted four information requests DSAR 1 to 4 prior to its outcome letter of 7 February 2025. All four were considered as part of the decision. These requests do not constitute valid DSARs.
b) A fifth request (DSAR 5) was submitted after the 7 February 2025 outcome. The request was also reviewed and was found not to relate to the Applicant's personal data, but general information about the pension scheme.
c) A case review was conducted and the ICO has clearly set out its position that the requests do not fall within the scope of subject access rights. No further action is considered necessary.
d) The ICO has issued both an initial outcome on 7 February 2025 and a review outcome on 19 May 2025, among other clarifying correspondence. There is no basis for the Tribunal to make an order under section 166 of the 2018 Act.
Consideration and Decision
166 Orders to progress complaints
(1) This section applies where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the UK GDPR, the Commissioner –
(a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, (b) fails to provide the complainant with information about progress on the complaint, or of the outcome of the complaint, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning when the Commissioner received the complaint, or (c) if the Commissioner's consideration of the complaint is not concluded during that period, fails to provide the complainant with such information during a subsequent period of 3 months.
(2) The Tribunal may, on an application by the data subject, make an order requiring the Commissioner –
(a) to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, (b) to inform the complainant of progress on the complaint, or of the outcome of the complaint, within a period specified in the order.
Signed Judge Saward
Date: 17 June 2025