Training your people in data protection: where to begin?

February 2025

In most organisations, your people are your greatest asset. However, from a compliance perspective, without proper training, knowledge and understanding, employees might make mistakes with potentially serious consequences. They could miss key legal requirements – whether this be compliance with Health & Safety, Employment, Data Protection or any other relevant laws.

Organisations need to give people relevant training and guidance, but when it comes to data protection, establishing the most effective approach can be tricky.

Legal requirements

There’s a requirement under GDPR for organisations to ‘implement appropriate technical and organisational measures’. The ‘organisational measures’ part is where employee awareness and training comes in, but the law doesn’t say how organisations should do this. Alongside this, organisations are required to meet GDPR accountability requirements.

Regulatory expectations

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office’s Accountability Framework provides helpful pointers on what a ‘good’ data protection training and awareness programme would look like. To summarise, the following are key components:

■ Appropriate training in data protection and information security for all employees
■ Refresher training on a regular basis
■ Data protection and information security in induction programme for new starters
■ More specialist training for specific employees where relevant.
■ Ongoing exercises to keep raising awareness

One size doesn’t fit all

Each organisation needs to work out its own approach. Some organisations (and indeed some teams within organisations) will handle much more sensitive data than others. Some employees may have very limited contact with personal data in their roles. While some may need to know how to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment, others may need to understand the nuances of fulfilling Data Subject Access Requests. Some teams may need to understand more about supplier due diligence, controller to processor contracts and the rules for international data transfers, and so on.

How the core data protection principles and lawful bases are applied in practice will vary enormously for different business functions – from Marketing to Operations, from HR to a Contact Centre.

For example, marketers usually need to understand more about consent and legitimate interests, the right to opt-out, what the law says about profiling, and so on. They also need to be very familiar with marketing rules under different legislation, such as PECR.

Whereas HR teams need to understand how data protection laws apply to recruitment and the many different tasks which take place for employment purposes; such as appraisals and development, health, sickness and absence data, diversity, employee communications, payroll… and so on.

What does good training look like?

‘All’ staff training

Often, to cover baseline training for all employees, organisations will look to use an outsourced providers’ data protection training module(s). Alternatively, they may customise an external solution or develop their own training content internally.

In my experience, the quality of outsourced training modules can vary enormously, so it pays to do your homework and find an effective solution which suits your organisation well.

Just be mindful; outsourced generic online training which is not customised is unlikely to be enough on its own. For example, it won’t tell your people how to internally report a suspected data breach, or who to forward privacy rights requests to. It won’t cover your own internal standards or policies. Additional internal materials will be needed – be these policies, procedures, guides, factsheets, short videos and so on.

It’s worth repeating; the law doesn’t tell us how we embed necessary knowledge and understanding. If you have certain roles where people’s handling of personal data is very limited, you may decide making them sit through an online training module really isn’t necessary. You could choose different methods to instil simple, relevant and important ‘dos and don’ts’.

More specialist training

Training is likely to be most effective if it’s bespoke or tailored to the needs of specific functions or teams and provides useful examples, such as user-journeys or case studies. Aligned to the different data protection requirements people need to consider for their own role.

However, this could become time consuming and costly, so a balance needs to be struck between the benefits and time. It can help to think about where the biggest risks lie in your business, so you can focus your efforts on the key teams which have greater exposure to, and influence, over data risk.

Does training need to focus on the Sales & Marketing team, the HR team, customer-facing teams, development team, anyone else?

Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) and other data rights are usually handled by nominated people, who are highly likely to need more specialist knowledge in how to handle them. But if your organisation has never had any privacy rights requests, this is unlikely to be a priority area.

Organisational culture

Ideally you’d want training to align with your organisation’s culture. Training doesn’t have to be provided in a specific format and there’s nothing to say you can’t be creative. Some organisations use gamification, bite-sized videos, ‘win a prize’ quizzes and so on. Try and include humour if you can; a joke just might make a key message hit home.

To sum up, making sure people have the right skills and knowledge for your business is one of the best ways to reduce the chance of data protection risks being overlooked. Prevention is usually better than cure!

As a data protection consultant since 2015, Philippa advises and supports a broad range of clients, and delivers data protection training. She also regularly writes GDPR guides to support data protection teams in their day-to-day work.

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

Data Breaches: Assessing the level of risk

February 2025

The alarm goes off inside your organisation; you’re certain, or have a reasonable degree of certainty, a personal data breach has occurred. You’ve either contained the breach, or are in the process of doing so. You’ve established all the facts or are still gathering them.

Great stuff. You’re starting to manage the risk. Alongside this, there are two pressing issues to address under GDPR (and UK GDPR):

1. Do you need to report the breach to a Data Protection Authority?
(e.g. the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office – ICO).
Reporting is required within 72-hours of becoming aware of a breach, and must be done unless the breach is unlikely to represent a ‘risk’

2. Do you need to notify affected individuals?
This is required without undue delay if the breach represents a ‘high risk’.
Data Protection Authorities don’t need to hear about every incident where there’s minimal risk to individuals. In fact, the ICO made it clear after GDPR was implemented they saw a degree of over-reporting. There’s a balance to be struck; you don’t want to fail to report a data breach when you should have.

Each incident needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking account of all relevant factors. No two incidents are likely to be the same (unless you failed to address something crucial the first time around!).

The key is balancing the severity of the potential impact on those affected with the likelihood of this occurring. For example, the impact could be quite severe, but highly unlikely to materialise, or conversely the impact could be relatively low, but highly likely.

What do data breach harms look like?

There could be a number of negative consequences for people affected, so you need to consider the harms and/or damage the breach might cause.

For example, it could result in any of the following: financial loss, identity theft, fraud, emotional distress, loss of confidentiality, discrimination, humiliation and reputational damage. Other harms could include material or physical damage, loss of control of personal data, social disadvantage or limitation of rights.

How to assess the potential harm from a data breach

In assessing the types of harm the breach may result in it can be useful to answer the following types of assessment questions:

■ Can individuals be identified easily?
■ Are people at increased risk of identity theft or fraud?
■ Could people suffer financially?
■ Could people’s reputation be damaged?
■ Is there a breach of confidentiality?
■ Are people at risks of physical harm?
■ Does the breach involve information relating to children or vulnerable adults?
■ Does the combination of data involved pose more of a risk?

The above is by no means an exhaustive list. The importance of certain questions will vary, depending on the nature of the incident, the personal data and individuals affected and indeed the nature of your organisation.

It’s good practice to use a risk matrix, with a scoring system of likelihood against severity, so you can evaluate the severity and likelihood of harm identified. This helps answer the key questions of a) should we report to a Data Protection Authority? and b) should we notify affected individuals? Not only does a scoring system provide internal reassurance a clear methodology is being used it’s also useful evidence of your assessment should it ever be required.

The European Commission Guidelines on Notification of a Personal Data Breach (in section IV) provide helpful pointers on how to assess risk and high risk.

If your breach involves special category data or financial details, the risks may be more obvious and the decision to report the breach may be more-clear cut.

Assessments may need to be fluid, including regular ‘check-ins’ with colleagues as your understanding of the situation evolves and answers to your questions become known.

While your response to a data breach needs to be swift and effective, often you won’t know all the facts and are unable fully evaluate the risk posed within 72-hours. The first report to a Data Protection Authority can be just an initial report. This can then be followed up with more information as it becomes available. In some cases the risk rating of a breach might be downgraded or upgraded.

The key to success is having a robust data incident procedure, to help your data incident response team manage what can be multiple moving parts as effectively as possible. A procedure which includes a clear method of assessing the risk. Like many ‘emergencies’ in life, from a punctured tyre to a cut finger, being well prepared will prove invaluable.

As a data protection consultant since 2015, Philippa advises and supports a broad range of clients, and delivers data protection training. She also regularly writes GDPR guides to support data protection teams in their day-to-day work.

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

Data protection and employment records

February 2025

How to manage personal data relating to employees

Data protection compliance efforts are often focused on commercial or public-facing aspects of an organisation’s activities. Making sure core data protection principles and requirements are met when collecting and handling the data of customers, members, supporters, students, patients, and so on. However the personal data held relating to employees and job applicants doesn’t always get the same level of attention.

Handling employees’ personal information is an essential part of running a business, and organisations need to be aware and mindful of their obligations under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. As well as, of course, obligations under employment law, health and safety law, and any other relevant legislation or sector specific standards.

A personal data breach could affect employee records. Employees can raise complaints about an organisation’s employment activities and employees (or former employees) can raise Data Subject Access Requests which can sometimes be complex to respond to. All of which can expose gaps in compliance with data protection laws. In some organisations employee records may represent the highest privacy risk.

Employee records are likely to include special category data and more sensitive information such as:

■ DE&I information (such as information relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc)
■ disabilities and/or medical conditions
■ health and safety records
■ absence and sickness records
■ performance reviews and development plans
■ disciplinary and grievance records
■ occupational health referrals
■ financial information required for payroll

Alongside the core HR records, employees may be present on other records – such as CCTV, any tracking of computer / internet use, and so on. All of which need careful consideration from a data protection standpoint. Also see monitoring employees.

In my experience, while the security of employee records may often be taken into consideration, other core data protection principles might sometimes be overlooked, such as:

■ Lawfulness

It’s necessary to have a lawful basis for each processing activity. Many activities may be necessary to perform a legal obligation or covered under the contract of employment with the individual. However, the contract may not cover every activity an organisation has requiring the use of employee data. It should be clearly determined where legal obligation or the contract is appropriate for any given activity and confirm any activities where you may instead need to rely on other lawful bases, such as legitimate interests or consent.

■ Special category data

To handle medical information, trade union membership and diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) activities, and any other uses of special category data, it’s necessary to determine a lawful basis, plus a separate condition for processing under Article 9. Handling special category data

■ Data minimisation

The principle of data minimisation requires employers to take steps to minimise the amount of personal information about their employees to what is necessary for their activities and not hold additional personal information ‘just in case’ they might need it.

■ Data retention

Employee’s data should not be kept longer than necessary. There are statutory retention requirements for employment records in the UK (and many other jurisdictions), which set out how long they must be kept. But these laws may not cover all types of activities you may have for employment data. Once you set these retention periods, they need to be implemented in practice, i.e. regular reviews of the data you hold for specific purposes and securely destroy records you no longer need. These may be electronic records on IT systems or perhaps physical HR records languishing in boxes in a storeroom! You may wish to refer to our Data Retention Guidance

■ Transparency

Employees are entitled to know the ways in which their employer uses their personal data, the lawful bases, the retention periods and so on. The requirements for privacy notices must be applied to employees, just like external audiences. This necessary privacy information may be provided in an Employee Privacy Notice or via an Employee Handbook.

■ Risk assessments

Data Protection Impact Assessments are mandatory in certain circumstances. In other cases they might be helpful to conduct. Organisations mustn’t overlook DPIA requirements in relation to employee activities. For example, any monitoring of employees which might be considered intrusive or the use of biometric data for identification purposes.

Record keeping

Appropriate measures need to be in place to make sure employee records are being handled lawfully, fairly and transparently and in line with other core data protection principles. It’s difficult to do this without mapping employee data and maintaining clear records of the purposes you are using it for, the lawful bases, special category conditions and so on, i.e. your Record of Processing Activities (RoPA). The absence adequate records will make the creating a comprehensive privacy notice rather challenging.

Training

Whilst we’re on the topic of employees, let’s also give a mention to training. All employees handling personal data should receive appropriate information security and data protection training. It’s likely those in HR / People teams handling employee data on a daily basis will benefit from specialist training beyond the generic online training modules aimed at all staff.

To help you navigate data protection obligations the ICO has published new guidance on handling employee records, which provides more detail on what the law requires and regulatory expectations.

Finally, don’t forget data protection compliance efforts need to extend beyond employees to job applicants, contractors, volunteers and others who perform work-related duties for the organisation.

After a successful career in publishing Simon moved into data protection consultancy in 2015. Simon advises businesses of all sizes across a wide range of sectors. He held the role of Director of Information Governance at Royal Mail Group in the run up to GDPR enforcement. He regularly delivers data protection courses for clients and the Institute of Data & Marketing (IDM).

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

Data Subject Access Requests – what are people entitled to?

February 2025

I’m often asked what’s in scope when responding the Right of Access – aka Data Subject Access Requests (DSAR/SAR). What are organisations obliged to provide, and what can they legitimately exclude? I’ve taken a look at some questions which routinely come up. But first a quick summary of what the law says…

The Right of Access is a fundamental right under data protection legislation in the UK and EU. There are similar rights in other jurisdictions, but I’m focusing here on the right under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act (DPA 2018).

The law gives people the right to receive and copy of their personal data, and other supplementary information from any organisation acting as a controller. Controller or processor – what are we?

Personal data is any information which could directly or indirectly identify the requestee. To give some examples, this could include images, voice and video recordings, demographic information, profiles, order history, marketing preferences, HR records, performance reviews, opinions expressed about the requestee, other personal identifiers … and the list goes on.

Now, on to the FAQs…

Q: Do we need to provide information the requestee already has, or is obvious to them?

The short answer is, yes. Based on UK case law, organisations can’t refuse to disclose information on the grounds personal data is already known to the individual. (Case: Lttihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens, 2017). However, it wouldn’t need to be included if the person has made it clear they don’t want this information. You can always ask them.

Q: Are they entitled to full documents?

It isn’t a right to documentation. Just because someone’s name appears in a report, spreadsheet, meeting notes or any other document doesn’t mean they’re entitled to the whole document, if the rest doesn’t relate to them. It may prove easier and relevant to provide full documents, but you would be justified in not doing so. You can extract the necessary information, or redact the irrelevant information. But remember what you provide must be meaningful and have context.

Q: Are they entitled to the full content of email correspondence?

Linked to the question above, people are only entitled to a copy of their personal data. So just because their email address or email signature appears in an email (or email chain) doesn’t make this their personal data. For example, routine business as usual emails, where the content is solely about business related matters will not be the individual’s personal data. It can be really helpful to explain this from the start.

Q: Are handwritten notes in scope?

Personal data which is not part (or intended to be part) of a structured filing system is not in scope. For example handwritten notes in a personal notepad where there’s no intention to formally file these notes would not need to be included. However, if for example, employees write notes in ‘day books’ which are intended to be kept as a record of conversations, these would be in scope.

Q: How much effort is required?

Organisations are expected to make all reasonable efforts to search, identify and retrieve all the personal data being requested. The ICO would expect systems to be well-designed and maintained so information can be efficiently located (including carrying out searches) and extracted. The right of access is not new. It was around long before GDPR came into force in 2018, so organisations would be expected to be well prepared to handle requests.

Q: Can we refuse to comply with a request?

Sometimes it may seem obvious the requestee has an ulterior motive for submitting a DSAR. In general, an individual’s motives shouldn’t affect their right to obtain a copy of their personal data, or the organisation’s duty to respond. Organisations can however refuse to comply with a request, either partially or fully, where they judge it to be manifestly unfounded or manifestly excessive.

A request might be considered manifestly unfounded if, for example, the individual…

■ has no real intention of exercising their right
■ offers to withdraw their request in return for some kind of benefit
■ explicitly states they want to cause disruption
■ makes unsubstantiated accusations or allegations
■ is targeting a specific employee due to a grudge
■ sends regular and targeted requests as part of a concerted campaign

A request might be considered manifestly excessive if it’s clearly or obviously unreasonable or would involve disproportionate effort. In assessing whether it would involve disproportionate effort, you should consider the following factors:

■ the nature of the requested information;
■ the context of the request, and the relationship between you and the individual;
■ whether a refusal to provide the information or even acknowledge if you hold it may cause substantive damage to the individual;
■ your available resources;
■ whether the request largely repeats previous requests and a reasonable interval hasn’t elapsed; or
■ whether it overlaps with other requests (although if it relates to a completely separate set of information it is unlikely to be excessive).

If you rely on either of these grounds, be sure to document your decision, the rationale behind it and explain this to the individual.

To give an example, quite a few years ago I worked on a request from a disgruntled former employee where, among everything else, they asked for all CCTV footage of them. The business operated CCTV which captured employees as they entered and exited the main office. We asked the individual if there were specific dates and times they were interested in. They responding just reiterating the request for all CCTV footage. I think understandably we judged this to be an manifestly excessive request, requiring disproportionate effort and that it would not cause any damage to the individual not to receive this.

Q: What can be excluded or redacted?

Once all the information relating to the individual has been retrieved, the data collated often includes information which doesn’t need to be disclosed. There may be justifiable grounds for excluding information or redacting documents, emails, video recordings and so on.

Information relating to others: the person making the request has a right to receive a copy of their personal data, they’re not entitled to personal data about other people. The DPA 2018 confirms you do not need to include certain information if it means disclosing information which identifies someone else, unless the other person has given their consent or it’s reasonable to disclose without the other person’s consent.

Confidential information: A duty of confidence may arise when another individual has genuinely shared ‘confidential’ information with the expectation it remains confidential. Confidentiality cannot be automatically assumed and needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Other information which may also be considered confidential includes, but is not limited to; trade secrets, information made confidential under another law, internal costs or commercial rates, intellectual property and information covered as part of a non-disclosure agreement

Other exemptions: The DPA 2018 provides a number of further exemptions which may apply depending on the nature of your business and the context of the specific request. These don’t always apply in the same way. Sometimes you might be obliged to rely on an exemption (i.e. it would break another law), other times it will be a choice. Commonly used exemptions include; legal professional privilege, crime and taxation, management information, research and statistics, confidential references and journalism.

The ICO says exemptions should not be routinely relied upon or applied in a blanket fashion. And remember, you may be required to demonstrate how an exemption applies and your rationale for relying on it. The ICO has published guidance on exemptions and how they apply.

These are just some questions I get asked and I’m afraid to say there are plenty more. Responding to DSARs can be very time-consuming, with nuanced considerations and can feel a minefield if you don’t receive many requests or out of the blue receive your first one. Our DSAR Guide provides more information about how to prepare and fulfil requests. Also see the ICO’s detailed Right of Access Guidance.

As a data protection consultant since 2015, Philippa advises and supports a broad range of clients, and delivers data protection training. She also regularly writes GDPR guides to support data protection teams in their day-to-day work.

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

Why record keeping is the cornerstone of data protection

January 2025

Records of Processing Activities

No one ever wrote a thriller about record keeping. Denzel, Keanu, Keira and Brad are not required on set. But here’s why we should give it due attention.

Put simply, without adequate records it’s difficult to demonstrate compliance with data protection legislation (GDPR and UK GDPR). Records are core to meeting the accountability principle, i.e. being ready and able to demonstrate evidence of compliance.

Let’s step back for a moment. Each organisation needs to know what personal data they hold, where it’s located and what purposes it’s being used for. Only then can you be sure what you’re using it for is fair and lawful, and gain confidence you’re meeting other GDPR obligations.

To put it another way, how confident is your organisation in answering the following questions?

  • Do we know what personal data we hold, it’s sensitivity and all the systems it’s sitting on – including data shared with third parties?
  • Do we know all purposes for processing?
  • Have we determined an appropriate lawful basis for each purpose? And are we meeting the specific requirements for that basis?
  • When handling special category data, have we also identified a special category condition?
  • Have we confirmed how long we need to keep the data for each purpose?

All of the above feed into transparency requirements, and what we tell people in our privacy notices.

In my opinion, you can’t answer these questions with confidence unless you map your organisation’s use of personal data and maintain a central record. This may be in the form of a Records of Processing Activity (RoPA).

Okay, so the absence of data protection records might only come to light if your organisation is subject to regulatory scrutiny. But not putting this cornerstone in place could result in gaps and risks being overlooked – which could potentially materialise into a serious infringement.

In my view, a RoPA is a sensible and valuable asset for most organisations. I fully appreciate creating and maintaining a RoPA can feel like a Herculean task, especially if resources are overstretched. That’s why we often recommend taking a proportionate and achievable approach, focussing on special category data use and higher risk activities first. Then build on this foundation when you can.

RoPA requirements under GDPR & UK GDPR

The requirements apply to both controllers and processors and include keeping records covering:

  • the categories of personal data held
  • the purposes of processing
  • any data sharing
  • details of transfers to third countries, including a record of the transfer mechanism safeguards in place;
  • retention periods
  • the technical and organisational measures used to protect the data

and more…

Do you employ less than 250 people?

If so, record keeping requirements may be less stringent. But you’ll still be required to maintain a RoPA if:

  • your processing of personal data is not occasional
  • your processing is likely to result in risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals
  • you process special category data (e.g. health data, ethnicity, trade union membership, biometrics and more)
  • you process personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences.

You can read more about the requirements in ICO records of processing guidance.

Benefits of Record Keeping (RoPA)

Here are just some of the benefits you can get from your RoPA.

1. Understanding the breadth and sensitivity of your data processing.

2. Visibility of where data protection risks lie. This will help establish priorities and focus efforts to tackle key risks.

3. Confidence your activities are lawful and meet specific regulatory requirements.

4. Tackle over retention of data – it’s a common challenge. By establishing your purposes for processing personal data, you can determine how long you need to keep that data. Then you can take practical steps to delete any data you no longer need.

5. Transparency – An up-to-date RoPA feeds into your privacy notice, making sure the information you provide accurately reflects what you are really doing.

6. Data breaches – Your RoPA should be the ‘go to’ place if you suffer a data breach. It can help you to quickly identify what personal data may have been exposed and how sensitive the data is, which processors might be involved and so on. Helping you to make a rapid risk assessment (within 72 hours) and helping you make positive decisions to mitigate risks to protect individuals.

7. Supply chain – Keeping a record of your suppliers (‘processors’) is a key aspect of supplier management along with due diligence, contractual requirements and international data transfers.

8. Privacy rights – If you receive a Data Subject Access Request, your records can help to locate and access the specific data required to fulfil the request. If you receive an erasure request, you can quickly check your lawful basis for processing and see if the right applies, and efficiently locate what systems the data needs to be deleted from.

Tips to get started

Here are a few very quick tips on how to commence a RoPA project or breathe new life into an outdated spreadsheet you last looked at in 2018!

Who?

No DPO or data protection team can create and maintain these records their own – they need support from others. Enlist the support of your Senior Leadership Team, as you’ll need them to back you and drive this forward.

Confirm who is or should be is accountable for business activities which use personal data within all your key business functions – the data owners. For example, Human Resources (employment & recruitment activities), Sales & Marketing (customer/client activities), Procurement (suppliers), Finance, and so on. Data owners are usually best placed to tell you what data they hold and what it’s currently used for, so get them onside.

What?

Make sure you’re capturing all the right information. The detail of what needs to be recorded is slightly different if you act as a controller or processor (or indeed both). If you need to check take look at the ICO guidance on documentation.

When?

There’s always some new system, new activity and/or change of supplier, isn’t there? You should aim to update your records whenever you identify new processing or changes to existing processing – including identifying when you need carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment or Legitimate Interests Assessment. Good stakeholder relations can really help with this.

In conclusion, record keeping might not win many Oscars, but it really is the cornerstone of data protection compliance. Adequate records, even if not massively detailed, can be really beneficial in so many ways, not just if the ICO (or another Data Protection Authority) comes calling.

After a successful career in publishing Simon moved into data protection consultancy in 2015. Simon advises businesses of all sizes across a wide range of sectors. He held the role of Director of Information Governance at Royal Mail Group in the run up to GDPR enforcement. He regularly delivers data protection courses for clients and the Institute of Data & Marketing (IDM).

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

Controller or processor? What are we?

January 2025

The importance of establishing if an organisation is acting as a processor or controller

On paper the definitions of controller and processor under GDPR (& UK GDPR) may seem straight-forward, but deciding whether you’re acting as a controller, joint-controller or processor can sometimes be a contentious area.  Many a debate has been had between DPOs and lawyers when trying to classify the relationship between different parties.

It’s not unusual for it to be automatically assumed all suppliers providing a service are acting as processors, but this isn’t always the case. Sometimes joint controllership, or separate distinct controllers, is more appropriate. Or perhaps a company is simply providing a service, and is not processing the client’s personal data (other than minimal contact details for a couple of employees).

It’s worth noting service providers (aka suppliers or vendors) will often act as both, acting as controller and processor for different processing tasks. For example, most will be a controller for at least their own employee records, and often for their own marketing activities too.

What GDPR says about controllers and processors

The GDPR tells us a controller means ‘the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data’.

A processor means ‘a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller’.

How to decide if we’re a controller or processor

There are some questions you can ask to help reach a conclusion:

■ Do we decide how and what personal data is collected?
■ Are we responsible for deciding the purposes for which the personal data is used?
■ Do we use personal data received from a client/partner for our own business purposes?
■ Do we decide the lawful basis for the processing tasks we are carrying out?
■ Are we responsible for making sure people are informed about the processing? (Is it our privacy notice people should see?)

If you’re answering ‘yes’, to some or all of these questions, it’s highly likely you’re a controller.

The ICO makes it clear it doesn’t matter if a contract describes you as a processor; “organisations that determine the purposes and means of processing will be controllers regardless of how they are described in any contract about processing services”.

A processor only processes a controllers’ personal data on their behalf and crucially doesn’t use this data for its own business purposes. While a processor may make its own day-to-day operational decisions, it should only process the data in line with the controller’s instructions, unless required to do otherwise by law.

Sometimes overlooked is the fact even if a handful of employees of a service provider only have access to a controller’s personal data it still means the service provider is ‘processing’ the data, and will be a processor.

Why it’s important to confirm your status

Controllers have a higher level of accountability. They are obliged to comply with all data protection principles, such as ensuring the lawfulness of processing, being transparent (e.g. privacy notices), fulfilling privacy rights requests and so on.

Processors do have a number of direct obligations, such as being required to implement appropriate  technical and organisation measures to protect personal data. A processor is also responsible for ensuring the compliance of any sub-processors it may use to fulfil their services to a controller. In fact processors are liable for the sub-processors.

The ICO issued a £3m fine to a software company in March 2025 for failing to implement sufficient measures, which you can read about here.

Data processing agreements

There’s a requirement to have an appropriate agreement in place between a controller and a processor.  Article 28 of EU / UK GDPR sets out specific requirements for what must be included in the contractual terms.

Such terms are often covered in a Data Processing Agreement/Addendum, but sometimes will be covered in a specific section on data protection within the main contract. (If there’s no DPA, no addendum and no section on data protection that’s a massive red flag!)

Often overlooked is the need to have clear documented instructions from the controller. It can be helpful to have these as an annex to the main contract (or master services agreement), so they can be updated if the processing changes. We’ve written more about the detail of what needs to be covered in contractual terms here. Another area which can get forgotten is sub-processors and international data transfers.

There are times where you’re looking to engage the services of a household name, a well-known and widely used processor. This sometimes leads to limited or no flexibility to negotiate contractual terms. In such cases, it pays to check the terms and, if necessary, take a risk-based view on whether you wish to proceed or not.

Before even looking at the terms, due diligence on prospective processors is a ‘must do’ for controllers, while taking an approach proportionate to the level of risk the outsourced processing poses. And for their part processors need to be prepared to prove their data protection and information security credentials.

As a data protection consultant since 2015, Philippa advises and supports a broad range of clients, and delivers data protection training. She also regularly writes GDPR guides to support data protection teams in their day-to-day work.

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

Court of Appeal rejects appeal against ICO fine

December 2024

The very first fine the ICO issued under the GDPR was back in 2019. It was to pharmacy, for storing unlocked boxes containing sensitive medical information in the yard behind its offices. More than five years later, the fine has yet to be paid.

The initial penalty notice was for £275,000 against Doorstep Dispensaree, a pharmacy in Edgware, North London. The company appealed, arguing the ICO’s actions were disproportionate and failed to take into consideration the firm’s financial hardship. It also argued less personal information was affected than originally thought. 67,000 documents were involved, rather than the 500,000 the original enforcement notice cited. Furthermore, the pharmacy claimed their backyard storage area was largely secure from public access.

The fine was subsequently reduced to £92,000.

As an aside, I’d suggest this is still a huge number of records stored in unlocked boxes. The data concerned involved customer’s names, addresses, dates of birth, NHS numbers, medical information and prescriptions.

This wasn’t the end of it. Doorstep Dispensaree raised a subsequent appeal, arguing the judge in the previous appeal failed to recognise the burden of proof lay with the ICO, and that undue weight had been given to the ICO’s reasons for opposing and setting a penalty.

In a decision welcomed by the ICO, the Court of Appeal has now dismissed this appeal. It ruled the burden of proof should lie with the appellant, Doorstep Dispensaree, and subsequent tribunals and appeals aren’t required to ignore original monetary penalty notices when making decisions.

Responding to the news, Information Commissioner John Edwards said, “I welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case as it provides clarity for future appeals. We defended our position robustly and are pleased that the court has agreed with our findings.”

The ICO has been much criticised for its lack of enforcement action under GDPR. It’s issued multiple fines under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR), but fewer under GPDR (now UK GDPR). This may be due to the fact violating the PECR rules can be more clearcut. While much of the criticism may be fair, I believe this case demonstrates the legal hurdles the Regulator can face when taking enforcement action. However, the more cases we get, the more case law we’ll have for UK GDPR.

As a data protection consultant since 2015, Philippa advises and supports a broad range of clients, and delivers data protection training. She also regularly writes GDPR guides to support data protection teams in their day-to-day work.

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

2024’s Data Protection Milestones

December 2024

Each year sees significant developments across the data protection landscape. I’ve asked industry insiders for their ONE most significant data protection or ePrivacy related milestone of 2024. Interestingly, everyone offered a different take. And all of these milestones will remain significant well into 2025.

UK GENERAL ELECTION AND DATA BILLS

Chris Combemale, Chair of the Data and Marketing Association

The most significant event for me was the General Election. For three years the DMA worked hard with the former government to ensure key reforms were included in the DPDI Bill, including certainty around legitimate interest as a lawful basis for direct marketing. At the time the election was called, DPDI was in the final stages of passage in the House of Lords. The DMA campaigned throughout the election to persuade the new government to pick up the mantle, including a joint letter to all political parties from the DMA, Tech UK and other members of the Business Advisory Group which I chaired. Our efforts paid off and the Data (Use and Access) Bill is now at Committee Stage in the House of Lords. DUA brings forward the best parts of DPDI while dropping the most controversial reforms, salvaging years of work and creating a better Bill that will transform public services, contribute to growth in the economy and maintain high levels of data protection.

Simon Blanchard, Data Protection Consultant, DPN Associates

The DUA Bill includes plans for Smart Data Schemes which allow consumers and businesses to safely share personal information with regulated and authorised third parties, for example, to generate personalised market comparisons. There are plans to create a framework for trusted identity verification services which could simplify processes like starting a new job, renting a home, as well as registering births and deaths. For me it’s significant there are now no plans to dilute accountability obligations under UK GDPR (e.g. remove the Data Protection Officer role and no changes to DPIA and RoPA requirements). DUA will give a statutory footing for many commonly used practices regarding Data Subject Access Requests. Certain legitimate interests will become ‘recognised’, such as national security, safeguarding and emergency response. The Bill’s progress is definitely one to watch in 2025. Updated DPN Legitimate Interests Guidance v3

DOORS OPENED TO EU PRIVACY ‘CLASS ACTIONS’

Fedelma Good, Data Protection and ePrivacy Consultant

Top of my list was definitely going to be the news Australia had introduced a law banning social media use for under 16s, not least because of all the attendant concerns that have been expressed it will actually backfire, driving teenagers to the dark web, or making them feel more isolated. Well, at least this was top of my list right up until the announcement on 3rd December that the privacy rights group noyb had been approved in Austria and Ireland – but with validity throughout the EU – as a so-called ‘Qualified Entity’ to bring collective redress actions in courts throughout the European Union. I would really love to have a crystal ball to be able to see if a few years from now we will see Max Schrem’s, chair of nyob, comment that “So far, collective redress is not really on the radar of many – but it has the potential to be a game changer,” as the understatement of the decade.

AI & DATA PROTECTION COMPLIANCE

Steve Wood, Consultant and Researcher, Privacy X and former Deputy Commissioner, ICO

In 2024 our community has dug deeper into the key implications of AI for data protection compliance. We’ve seen a range of consultations from data protection regulators globally. Addressing issues such as whether large language models are classed as personal data, when legitimate interests can apply as a lawful basis, how data subjects’ rights apply to AI models and what safeguards to mitigate DP risks. Given the pivotal role the EU GDPR plays in global data protection governance the key event for me will come right at the end of the year, just before the 23 December (some Xmas holiday reading!) when the EDPB will release their GDPR Article 64(2) Opinion and AI models, requested by the Irish Data Protection Authority. The Opinion will provide a significant regulatory framing for the approach companies need to take to AI governance for the coming years, noting the breadth of application of the GDPR compared to the focus of the EU AI Act on high-risk systems.

GLOBAL ADOPTION OF DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES

Robert Bond, Senior Counsel, Privacy Partnership Law

The one most significant data protection event in 2024 for me was the number of countries around the world who were passing and updating their data protection law significantly influenced by the GDPR. From Kenya to Sri Lanka, from Australia to Saudi Arabia and from China to many States in the USA, the similarities around data protection principles, data subject rights and data transfer restrictions are considerable. Whilst these global developments may not apply to smaller organisations, in the case of multinationals, the ROI for all the hard work invested in complying with the GDPR is that complying with data protection laws in other parts of the world is getting somewhat easier.

UNLAWFUL INTERNATIONAL DATA TRANSFERS

Eduardo Ustaran, Partner Hogan Lovells International LLP

An issue which has returned as a top priority for regulators is cross-border data transfers. Due to geopolitical tensions, the resulting increase in surveillance and the populist appeal of data localisation, the legal restrictions on international data transfers have attracted implacable scrutiny and enforcement. A worrying concern in this area is that there seems to be no room for a balanced assessment of the risk in practice, as the mere possibility of access to data by law enforcement or intelligence agencies is leading regulators to conclude that such transfers are unlawful. This regulatory line of thinking poses a real test for everyone seeking to apply a pragmatic, risk-based approach to legitimising global data flows.

CASE LAW & THE DEFINITION OF ‘PROCESSING’

Claire Robson, Governance Director, Chartered Insurance Institute

An interesting development in case law came in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Farley v Paymaster (trading as Equiniti), a case about infringement of data protection rights in postal misdirection. Over 450 current and former police officers took action against their pension administrator, after statements were sent to out-of-date addresses. The High Court dismissed many of the claims, stating there was not enough evidence to show the post (pension benefits statements) had been seen by a third party, so no processing had occurred. The Court of Appeal overturned this, granting permission for claimants to appeal. It felt there was prospect of success in claiming processing had taken place through extraction of the information from the database, electronic transfer of data to the paper document, along with the mistaken address and was not necessary to rely on a third party reading the statement. An interesting one for Data Controllers to watch in how this develops and what it means for the definition of, and limits to ‘processing’.

LACK OF ICO ENFORCEMENT

Emma Butler, Data Protection Consultant, Creative Privacy

For me, sadly, the most significant event of 2024 has been the decline of data protection enforcement. Yes, we have seen fines for marketing breaches and some enforcement notices, but there has been a long list of serious compliance breaches with significant impacts on people that have only received a reprimand. This leads me to wonder how bad it has to get before there is serious enforcement action to change behaviours. I have seen a corresponding lessening of the importance of compliance among organisations in terms of increased risk appetites for non-compliance, and feeling they can ‘get away with’ practices because ‘everyone else is doing it’ and they see no consequences from the ICO. I have also noticed a decrease in DPO / senior roles and more combining of the DP role with other functions, as well as low salaries for the roles that exist. Not a vintage year.

REJECT ALL COOKIES

For my part, a significant change this year has been the ‘reject all’ button springing up on so many UK websites. Giving people a clear option to reject all non-essential cookies. (Albeit this is certainly not universal and I’m not sure clicking ‘reject all’ always works in practice). This change followed an ICO warning late in 2023 to the operators of some of the country’s most popular websites, demanding compliance with the cookie rules. Particularly focused on advertising/targeting cookies, website operators were told they had to make it as easy to reject all, as it is to accept all. We then saw some websites moving to the controversial consent or pay model; which gives users a choice 1) pay for an ad-free service 2) consent to cookies, or 3) walk away. I’ll be watching closely for the ICO’s hotly awaited views on the legitimacy of this approach. I’m also pleased it looks like the DUA Bill will pave the way for first party website analytics cookies to be permitted without consent.

As you can see, from the DUA Bill to AI, global privacy laws to data transfers and the real possibility of EU ‘class actions’, these milestones are likely to keep the industry busy well into 2025 and beyond. And we’ll continue to keep you updated of the most significant developments as they happen.

As a data protection consultant since 2015, Philippa advises and supports a broad range of clients, and delivers data protection training. She also regularly writes GDPR guides to support data protection teams in their day-to-day work.

Copyright DPN
The information provided and opinions expressed in our content represent the views of the Data Protection Network and our contributors. They do not constitute legal advice.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Get DPN updates direct to your inbox. Insight, free resources, guides, events & services from DPN Associates (publishers of DPN). All our emails have an opt-out. For more information see our Privacy Statement.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.