Famian Ray v The Information Commissioner

Facts

The applicant, named in the judgment as Fabian Ray (the heading gives "Famian Ray"), made a subject access request to the Financial Ombudsman Service. On 22 June 2026 the applicant complained to the Information Commissioner about how that request had been handled. By a letter dated 2 July 2026 the Commissioner gave an outcome: the Financial Ombudsman Service appeared to have handled the request in line with its obligations. More correspondence followed, and after an internal review the Commissioner confirmed in writing on 28 July 2026 that the outcome was appropriate. On 8 July 2026 the applicant applied to the First-tier Tribunal on Form GRC1. The correct form was GRC3, but the Tribunal treated the application as one for an order under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 requiring the Commissioner to progress the complaint. On 13 July 2026 the applicant also applied on Form GRC5 for the application to be expedited. The Commissioner applied to strike out the application under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, for want of jurisdiction, or under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as having no reasonable prospect of success. Case management directions dated 3 August 2026 invited the applicant's submissions on the strike-out application and provided that the expedition application would be decided afterwards. The applicant made submissions, which mainly concerned the conduct of the investigation and the merits of the complaint. The matter was decided without a hearing.