Info Gov

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued new guidance on how organisations should handle data protection requests, including data protection complaints, as part of preparations for major reforms coming into force under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA).

The guidance was published on 12 February 2026 and is intended to help organisations meet new statutory duties before they become legally binding in June. The guidance sets out, for the first time, a mandatory requirement for organisations to have a formal process for handling data protection complaints. The ICO emphasises that “there are no exemptions to this”, and that all organisations - public, private and third sector - must be able to demonstrate a clear, accessible and timely complaints pathway.

Although the new duty does not take effect until 19 June 2026, the ICO says early publication is intended to give organisations time to prepare and embed compliant processes. The regulator also stresses that the standards set out represent good practice even before the law changes.

The guidance forms part of a broader package of updates linked to the DUAA, which introduces new investigatory powers for the ICO and amends the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. These include enhanced enforcement tools, the ability to compel witnesses, and strengthened obligations around transparency and accountability.

The DUAA also introduces reforms to Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs), including clearer timelines and a more structured approach to extensions—changes that employers and public authorities are being urged to prepare for.

The ICO’s new guidance provides practical steps for organisations, including:

- establishing a dedicated complaints handling process
- ensuring staff understand how to identify and escalate data protection concerns
- providing clear information to individuals about how to complain
- responding promptly and proportionately
- documenting decisions and outcomes to demonstrate compliance

The regulator says the aim is to improve user experience, reduce unnecessary escalation to the ICO, and ensure organisations resolve issues at the earliest opportunity.

The guidance marks a significant shift in the ICO’s expectations of organisations’ internal governance. Analysts have highlighted that the new statutory complaints duty mirrors existing requirements in regulated sectors such as financial services, signalling a more formalised approach to data protection accountability.

Also in this section

May 26, 2026

Key Data Protection Issues for Automated Recruitment in the Public Sector

The need to recruit faster in a competitive market, the need to minimise costs in the recruitment process, and the need to secure the best candidate quickly, makes the use of AI an appealing option for any employer including public bodies. But there are pitfalls for the unwary write David Leach and Charlotte Smith.
May 08, 2026

Schools warned over AI blackmail threat as guidance urges rethink on pupil images

Schools across the UK are being urged to review or remove identifiable photographs of pupils from their websites and social media accounts, following warnings that criminals are using artificial intelligence tools to manipulate those images into child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and then threaten to release it unless a ransom is paid.
Apr 28, 2026

AI in Education: Why Data Protection Must Come First

Artificial Intelligence promises a lot. It can undoubtedly do amazing things. But secretly (or maybe not so secretly), it also makes us slightly nervous. Adam Halsey looks at what this means for schools, and why data protection needs to sit at the centre of any decision to use AI.
Apr 22, 2026

Preparing for the new complaints regime

From 19 June 2026, all organisations acting as data controllers are required to have in place an effective process to enable individuals to raise complaints about how their personal data is handled. Ashleigh Dibb looks at what this will mean in practice.
Apr 17, 2026

When data protection doesn’t protect you

Recently, the Information Commissioner’s Office published the outcome of a criminal prosecution. The title? Just two names: Christopher Munro and William Chipoma. No explanation. No softening. No anonymity. And that, in itself, is a powerful lesson in how data protection law really works.

InfoGov Masthead Newsletter 800