Parmjit Singh Flora v The Information Commissioner

Facts

The applicant, Parmjit Singh Flora, made a subject access request to Carlisle College ("NCG") and complained to the Information Commissioner about the way it had been handled. A first complaint was submitted on 28 March 2025, and a second complaint, alleging that the wording of the same request had been deliberately altered after submission, followed on 25 April (the judgment gives the year of that complaint as both 2025 and 2026). The Commissioner dealt with the two together under a single reference, acknowledging delay, seeking further evidence in December 2025 and receiving material from the applicant on 31 December 2025. On 21 April 2026 the case officer concluded that NCG appeared to have carried out appropriate searches and that no further regulatory action was required; on 13 May 2026, after the applicant asked for reconsideration on the alteration point, the Commissioner confirmed a final decision and pointed to its case review process, which the applicant did not use. He applied to the First-tier Tribunal under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018, seeking orders that the investigation be reopened and widened. The Commissioner applied to strike the application out under Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(c). In reply the applicant narrowed his case to two grounds: delay, and the absence of any outcome on the second complaint.