A survey conducted in April and May 2023 revealed that around ** percent of the companies that do business in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) found it challenging to adapt to new or changing requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). A further ** percent of the survey respondents said it was challenging to increase the budget because of the changes in the data privacy laws.

As of February 2025, the largest fine issued for violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the United Kingdom (UK) was more than 22 million euros, received by British Airways in October 2020. Another fine received by Marriott International Inc. in the same month was the second-highest in the UK and amounted to over 20 million euros.

A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is one of the ways to find out what privacy risks people face when information is collected, used, stored, or shared about them. This helps the London Borough of Barnet find issues so that risks can be taken away or lowered to a level that is acceptable. It also cuts down on privacy breaches and complaints that could hurt the Council's reputation or lead to action by the Information Commissioner (the government watchdog). The London Borough of Barnet makes DPIAs public in with its Data Charter and the 2018 Data Protection Act and UK GDPR.

A data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a process to identify privacy risks to individuals in the collection, use, storing, and disclosure of information. This allows Camden to identify problems so that risks can be removed or reduced to acceptable levels. It also reduces privacy breaches and complaints which can damage the Council’s reputation or enforcement action against it by the Information Commissioner (the regulator). We publish these as a dataset in accordance with the Council's Data Charter and also the GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018.

Whilst this some of the requested information is held by the NHSBSA, we have exempted some of the figures under section 40(2) subsections 2 and 3(a) of the FOIA because it is personal data of applicants to the VDPS. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a - it is not fair to disclose individual’s personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b - these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the individual. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Guidance is that information is personal data if it ‘relates to’ an ‘identifiable individual’ regulated by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) or the Data Protection Act 2018. The information relates to personal data of the VDPS claimants and is special category data in the form of health information. As a result, the claimants could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. Online communities exist for those adversely affected by vaccines they have received. This further increases the likelihood that those may be identified by disclosure of this information. Section 40(2) is an absolute, prejudice-based exemption and therefore is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. To comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency data protection principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. The NHSBSA has considered this and does not have the consent of the data subjects to release this information and believes that it would not be possible to obtain consent that meets the threshold in Article 7 of the UK GDPR. The NHSBSA acknowledges that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information to provide the full picture of data held by the NHSBSA; however, we have concluded that disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm and therefore, section 40(2) is engaged. This is because there is a reasonable expectation that patient data processed by the NHSBSA remains confidential, especially special category data. There are no reasonable alternative measures that could meet the legitimate aim. As the information is highly confidential and sensitive, it outweighs the legitimate interest in the information. Section 41 FOIA This information is also exempt under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). This is because the requested information was provided to the NHSBSA in confidence by a third party - another individual, company, public authority or any other type of legal entity. In this instance, details have been provided by the claimants. For Section 41 to be engaged, the following criteria must be fulfilled:

A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) pre-screen is a shortened version of the full DPIA and is used to determine if the full assessment is needed. It should be carried out before any new data processing starts (or if the processing is already happening, before a change that will involve a high risk to individuals starts). In many cases the pre-screen is sufficient to assess and manage any risks and a full assessment is not required. Like full DPIAs, these are published in accordance with the Council's Data Charter and also the GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018.”

List of properties licensed under the Council’s HMO Licensing Scheme. This list is updated on a monthly basis. Under section 232 of The Housing Act 2004 the London Borough of Barnet is required to maintain and make available a public register of licensed Houses in Multiple Occupations. An extract of the register is published on the Council’s website here. The dataset is not intended for marketing purposes and none of the individuals or organisations mentioned within this register have given their consent for such use. Companies wishing to use this data for commercial purposes, and marketing in particular, are advised to consider whether their use of this data complies with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Information Rights are upheld by the Information Commissioners Office, for further information, see the Information Commissioner’s Office website at ww.ico.org.uk. More information on Houses in Multiple Occupancy can be found on our website as well as on the council's Planning portal. You will need to select "Houses in Multiple Occupation" from the drop-down menu and click "Search":

I can confirm that we do hold the requested information however, we consider the name and General Medical Council (GMC) number to be personal data under section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Disclosure of the medical assessor’s name or GMC number would result in the identification of the medical assessor when entered into the GMC public register. As the requested information would allow a medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt under section 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) of the FOIA (personal information). This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose medical assessors’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the medical assessor. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the medical assessor or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet that interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. In this case we do not have the consent of the medical assessor to disclose their personal information. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest in disclosing the information against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor. Having reviewed the information you have provided I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information. However, I agree with the previous decision that disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Whilst I acknowledge your comments on this, disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA has to consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that the name and/or GMC number will identify the medical assessor there is a reasonable expectation that this information would not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle. Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40

Information relating to the independent medical assessor Response Names and GMC number I can confirm that we do hold this information relating to medical assessors. However, we consider the name and General Medical Council (GMC) number to be personal data under section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Disclosure of the medical assessor’s name or GMC number would result in the identification of the medical assessor when entered into the GMC public register. https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/our-registers Please be aware that I have decided not to release the names and GMC numbers of the medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. As the requested information would allow a medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a. it is not fair to disclose medical assessors’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b. these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the medical assessor. The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA has to consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that the name and/or GMC number will identify the medical assessor there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle. Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Qualifications and experience I have established that the NHSBSA does not hold this information. This is because the medical qualifications and experience of the medical assessors are the responsibility of the third-party medical assessment supplier, Crawford & Company. I hope however, that the following information provides reassurance on this point. All claims are assessed by the independent medical assessment supplier with a consistent approach. Each case is considered on its own merits, by an experienced independent medical assessor. The contract with our supplier does not require them to tell us details of the qualifications of the medical assessors or their experience. The contract does require that all assessments carried out are undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced registered medical practitioners. This includes being registered on the UK GMC register with a licence to practise. In addition, they must meet or exceed the following requirements. Medical assessors must: • be a registered medical practitioner with at least five years’ post graduate experience; and • have experience of the performance of medical and/or disability assessments, addressing questions of causation and impact in the context of legislative or policy requirements to assist the decision maker.

In September 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission fined Meta Ireland 91 million euros after passwords of social media users were stored in 'plaintext' on Meta's internal systems rather than with cryptographic protection or encryption. In May 2023, the EU fined Meta 1.2 billion euros for violating laws on digital privacy and putting the data of EU citizens at risk through Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers. European privacy legislation is seen as being far stricter than American privacy law, and the sending of EU citizens’ data to the United States resulted in the record breaking penalty being issued to the tech giant. In January 2023, after it was discovered that Meta Platforms had improperly required that users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp accept personalized adverts to use the platforms, the company was issued a 390 million euro fine by the European Commission. EU regulators claim that the social media giant broke the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by including the demand in its terms of service. In addition, Meta was fined 405 million euros by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) in September 2022 for violating Instagram's children's privacy settings. In November 2022, the DPC fined Meta a further 265 million euros for failing to protect their users from data scraping. GDPR violations in 2022 Social media sites and companies are not the only types of online services upon which users' data can potentially be compromised. In 2022, the online service with the biggest fine for violating GDPR was e-commerce and digital powerhouse Amazon, which was issued a 746 million euro fine. Furthermore, in December 2021, Google was penalized 90 million euros for GDPR violations. What are the most common GDPR violations? Since GDPR went into effect in May 2018, fines have been imposed for a variety of reasons. As of June 2022, companies' non-compliance with general data processing principles accounted for the largest share of fines, resulting in over 845 million euros worth of penalties. Insufficient legal basis for data processing was the second most common violation, amounting to 447 million euros in fines.

I can confirm that we do hold information on the names and General Medical Council (GMC) numbers for independent medical assessors. Please note that this response does not relate to a specific claim or claimant. The request is being answered more generally given requests under FOIA are requester-blind, that is to say the identity of the requester is not taken into account when considering a request for information under FOIA. We consider the name and GMC number to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018. Disclosure of their names or GMC numbers would result in their identification when entered into the GMC public register. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the names and GMC numbers of the independent medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. As the requested information would allow an independent medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: A. it is not fair to disclose their personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. B. these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into their privacy. The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the independent medical assessor. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA has to consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the independent medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that the name and/or GMC number will identify them, there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle. Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Qualifications and experience The NHSBSA does not hold information on the independent medical assessors' qualifications. This is because their medical qualifications and experience are the responsibility of the third-party medical assessment supplier. I hope, however, that the following information provides reassurance on this point: All claims are assessed by the independent medical assessment company with a consistent approach. Each case is considered on its own merits, by an experienced independent medical assessor. The contract with our supplier does not require them to tell us details of their qualifications or their experience.

I can confirm that the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) holds the information you have requested. However, we consider the full names of NHSBSA employees to be personal data under section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Disclosure of an employee’s name may result in their identification. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the full name of the person(s) corresponding with you. This is because the personal details of NHSBSA employees as this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. As the requested information would allow a NHSBSA employee to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a. it is not fair to disclose NHSBSA employees’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress to the NHSBSA employee b. these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the NHSBSA employee The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the NHSBSA employee. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA has to consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the NHSBSA employees is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the likelihood that the personal details would identify the NHSBSA employee there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle.

The name of the medical assessor for VDPS claim. Response I can confirm that we do hold this information relating to medical assessors; however, we are issuing a refusal notice under section 17 of the FOIA as we consider the name and General Medical Council (GMC) number to be personal data as defined under section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Disclosure of the medical assessor’s name or GMC number would result in the identification of the medical assessor when entered into the GMC public register. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the names and GMC numbers of the medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. As the requested information would allow a medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a. it is not fair to disclose medical assessors’ personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b. these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the medical assessor. The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA must consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that the name and/or GMC number will identify the medical assessor there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle.

This report contains all Right of Access (Data Protection Act 2018) requests received by the Metropolitan Police Service and logged on our corporate logging system since May 2018. In addition, there is information on Subject Access Requests (Data Protection Act 1998) received after 01/01/2015 up to the introduction of the 2018 Act. There is also information on Appeals and complaints from January 2015 onwards covering both the 1998 and 2018 legislation.

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) recommend that organisations publish their own performance in answering Subject Access/Right of Access Requests on a quarterly basis. This report is our response to that recommendation.

Counting Rules

One submission from a member of the public will count as one request. Multiple submissions from the same person on different dates for different data will be counted as multiple requests.

The data used in the MPS Right of Access Performance Dashboard is available here Right of access performance dashboard | Metropolitan Police , along with the related data definitions. Please note that, this data set running quarterly behind with quarterly update.

Due to an internal IT deployment, from 27th February these datasets may be temporarily disrupted. Work is ongoing to rebuild these datasets.

Thank you for your request for information about the following: Request ‘The name or position of the medical assessor’ The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) received your request on 3 July 2025. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Our response I can confirm that the NHSBSA holds some of the information you have requested. Name(s) of the medical assessor Regarding the name of the assessor(s), I can confirm that this information is held by the NHSBSA as it is included in the medical report received from the medical assessment supplier. All medical assessors are UK based. The name and location of the medical assessor is redacted before this report is disclosed to the claimant or their representative. Please note that this response does not relate to any specific claim(s) or claimant as under FOIA the identity of the individual requesting this information is unknown. The identity of the requester is also not taken into account when considering a request for information under FOIA. We consider the name to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018. Disclosure of any individual’s name would result in their identification. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the names of the medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption (section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a)) of the FOIA. As the requested information would allow an independent medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose medical assessors’ personal details due to the potential to cause damage or distress b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the medical assessor The requested information is exempt if disclosure contravenes any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that releasing the name of a medical assessor would identify them, there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. In addition, the medical assessor has not consented to this disclosure. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle. Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Position of the medical assessor I can confirm that the NHSBSA does not hold the requested information. The NHSBSA contracts a third-party supplier, Crawford and Company, to carry out medical assessments for the VDPS. The job role or position of the medical assessors is performed by Crawford and Company and not the NHSBSA. I hope, however, that the following information provides reassurance on this point. All claims are assessed by the independent medical assessment company with a consistent approach. Each case is considered on its own merits by an experienced medical assessor. The contract requires all assessments carried out are to be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced Registered Medical Practitioners. This includes being registered on the UK General Medical Council with a licence to practise and meet or exceed the following requirements: