Information Commissioner resolved its confusing decision letter

What happened

Mr P complained to ICO about his criminal record. He told ICO that the police had recorded he had pleaded guilty to actual bodily harm when in fact he had pleaded guilty to assault. He had given the police a copy of the court's Memorandum of Conviction, as well as a local newspaper report to support his view. The police asked the court for a copy of the court file, but it had been destroyed. The police therefore put forward a compromise. They would not change Mr P's record because they did not have the court file to do that. But they would keep his complaint on his criminal record so it was clear he disputed it.

Mr P complained to ICO. ICO decided the police had complied with the Data Protection Act. When ICO told Mr P about the decision, he did not understand the letter because it was full of legal quotations and language he did not understand.

Mr P complained and ICO sent him a better written letter explaining its decision more clearly. Mr P and ICO continued to correspond, until he eventually complained to us.

What we found

We did not uphold this complaint. We did not criticise ICO for the way it made its decision, which was fair and reasonable. However, ICO's first letter to Mr P was confusing, and it was not surprising that he complained. After he did that, ICO sent Mr P a much clearer decision, which gave him an explanation he could understand. In doing this, ICO resolved its original mistake.