Jean-Luc Jules v The Information Commissioner

The Appellant lodged a GRC1 form on 22 January 2026. The Appellant submits that a decision of the Information Commissioner made on 22 January 2026, reference IC-436403-V8D0 should be set aside and that his complaint should be reconsidered within the correct legal framework.

Whilst the initial complaint is not included in the case papers, it appears to relate to a complaint that was made by the Appellant to the Respondent concerning deficiencies in Bipi Mobility UK Ltd’s handling of a Subject Access Request made by the Appellant.

The supporting documentation provided with the GRC1 states that the appeal concerns whether the Respondent “lawfully and adequately exercised her discretion under section 165 of the Data Protection Act 2018 when concluding that no further regulatory action was appropriate”.

On 26 January 2026, the Tribunal notified the Appellant that the appeal was incomplete as it did not comply fully with rule 22(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, in that a copy of any written record of the decision that was being challenged had not been provided with the GRC1.

On the same date, the Appellant emailed a written record of the Respondent’s decision to the Tribunal.

Further directions were issued on 29 January 2026, which required the Appellant to provide a Decision Notice with a right of appeal by 12 February 2026. It was noted that a failure to comply with the direction could lead to the Tribunal striking out the appeal pursuant to rule 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 without further direction.

On 03 February 2026 the Appellant forwarded a letter from the Respondent, dated 02 February 2026, to the Tribunal. In that letter, the Respondent stated that Decision Notices were only issued in relation to Freedom of Information Act complaints. As the Appellant’s complaint had raised data protection issues, there was no requirement for the Respondent to issue a Decision Notice pursuant to the UK GDPR or the Data Protection Act 2018. It was noted that “The outcome for your data protection complaint was issued to you on 26 August 2025 and then followed up on 13 January 2026. Your case was reviewed and I provided my response to you on 22 January 2026. My understanding is that you can only appeal to the Tribunal in relation to the following issues relating to data protection complaints [hyperlink inserted]. It does not appear that you can appeal to the Tribunal in relation to the outcome of your data protection complaint”.

Case Management Directions were issued by the Registrar on 26 February 2026. The Case Management Directions noted that, where an order was sought pursuant to section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018, the appropriate form to commence proceedings was a GRC3 application form. The Registrar took the view that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and should therefore consider striking out the proceedings.

A direction was made that the Appellant was to state why the current proceedings should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by 13 March 2026.

No response has been received from the Appellant.

Pursuant to section 57(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the right to appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner only arises “where a decision notice has been served”. Here, no Decision Notice has been served and there is therefore no right of appeal pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal “must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them”.

Pursuant to rule 8(4) of the same Rules, the Tribunal must not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under rule 8(2)(a) without first giving the Appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out. In this case, the Appellant has been given the opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out and has failed to do so.

As no Decision Notice has been served in this case, there is no right of appeal pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by way of the filing of a GRC1 form. I therefore strike out the appeal as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to any part of it.

If the Appellant wants to seek an order pursuant to section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018, he must instigate the proceedings through the proper route, namely the filing of a GRC3 form.