SYP withhold my personal data again

The SAR was submitted on the 8th Jan 2014.
The data was sent to me on the 18th February but documents were missing.

The documents that were not provided were copies of the complaint investigation logs in relation to my previous complaints.

I made 3 further requests to Ms Gill Bower-Lissaman (Head of ICU) for this information to be provided and received a response on the 14th March

Following your email, I have reviewed the three files that your have quoted and can confirm that there are no complaint logs within those files that contain your personal data

I know that these documents do contain personal data as I have a blank version of this document (ADM366) obtained under a FOI request a few weeks prior, below is a snapshot of the document from that request.


Over the next month I continued to communicate with SYP until finally referring the matter to the Information Commissioner.

On the 29th April, Chief Constable Crompton wrote me this letter claiming he had sought advice from his Legal Team and National Experts and the data would not be provided as it was not my personal data.


On the 20th June, the ICO upheld my referral again on all counts.

As a result, it seems SYP has not disclosed all of the personal data you are entitled to within the scope of your SAR of 13 January 2014 within the prescribed period of 40 calendar days. Therefore, it appears SYP has not met its obligations under the sixth data protection principle. Consequently, in my view, it is unlikely that SYP has complied with the requirements of the DPA in this case.

South Yorkshire Police finally gave in and provided the document below. They did also provide me a copy of the Procad incident from January which I can’t reproduce here but there were a number of paragraphs that are now un-redacted.


Chief Constable Crompton refuses to name the ‘national experts’ that he consulted who told him that he was correct not to release the above document to me. There are still documents missing from my SAR request which SYP are still refusing to provide to me despite the two decisions by the ICO in my favour.