Subject Access Request

[Deleted User]

I’ve sent a SAR to an ex-employer and they have sent a letter asking for a charge.

I was under the impression that they couldn’t charge no more?

Or have I read that bit wrong?

[Deleted User]

They can't charge any more.

Comms69

Deleted_User wrote: »

They can't charge any more.

They can in certain circumstances.

Typically if requests are excessive or repetitive.

[Deleted User]

It was for a copy of my personnel file if that matters.

agrinnall

If they continue to make a charge after you've told them they can't do it any more then you can make a complaint to the ICO. See "Can we charge a fee?" and "What should we do if we refuse to comply with a request?"



https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-of-access/

Owain_Moneysaver

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-of-access/

https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/data-protection-blog/subject-access-requests-under-the-gdpr-what-employers-need-to-know

Note in particular the exemptions for 'confidential references'

[Deleted User]

Thanks for all the links, I!!!8217;ll send a letter back and express that they shouldn!!!8217;t be charging a fee.

As for the confidential references, that doesn!!!8217;t concern me as they have never had to provide one for me.

ACG

What are they looking to charge? If it is the old £10 fee, then I would say that they are probably out of date as one hours work or part there of does not seem excessive.

If they are paying an administrator say £10 an hour and they are asking you for £40 then they are probably deeming the job as "manifestly unfounded or excessive" as it will be a 4 hour job to get everything you want and so are forwarding on their costs to you.

But I do not think their is any definition of "manifestly unfounded or excessive" (happy to be proven wrong) so it would end up on the ICOs desk if you both dug your heels in.

Undervalued

ACG wrote: »

But I do not think their is any definition of "manifestly unfounded or excessive" (happy to be proven wrong) so it would end up on the ICOs desk if you both dug your heels in.

I think you are correct.

The guidance I have read generally takes the view that it is intended to be used to discourage repeated requests for the same material and possibly very old material that has been archived. Although, under most circumstances, it would be debatable if they should have kept the data that long!

As you say most likely the response was based on the old rules.

[Deleted User]

Yeah it quite possibly be that they are out of date with practice, as it!!!8217;s £10 they are asking for.

I!!!8217;ll send them a response and see how they proceed.

[Deleted User]

Update:
Thought I would let you know that after I challenged the company they decided they wouldn!!!8217;t charge for the SAR and are currently processing this for me.