No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Read our Digital & Print Editions
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Reform UK is under investigation by the Information Commissioner for potentially breaking data protection law, after being accused of lying to the watchdog.
It follows a complaint from a voter who received unsolicited communications from Nigel Farage’s party. Byline Times reader Charles Parkinson made a legally-binding subject access request – asking for what data the party held on him – to Reform UK on 27 March this year.
After receiving no response despite multiple follow-up emails, he took his complaint to Britain’s official data watchdog, the Information Commissioner’s Office in June.
In October, the ICO replied to Parkinson’s complaint, saying they’d been told by Reform UK that the party had attempted to contact him via email but was unable to reach his mailbox. The ICO officer said: “Attached…is a copy of the Reform Party’s response to your complaint, which they have asked us to pass on to you due to their struggles in contacting you.”
The ICO passed on a document apparently showing evidence Reform UK had tried to contact him. But the supposed email is dated 1 March 2025 – weeks before Parkinson had even contacted the party on 27 March.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Parkinson has now escalated this matter within the ICO, requesting a review, on the basis that Reform UK appears to have misled the ICO – he alleges, to avoid discharging its legal obligations under the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Parkinson told the ICO: “The attached is very clearly not an email and is instead a very poor attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. They very clearly did not try to contact me at all and failed to discharge their duties under GDPR.”
He has accused Reform UK of fabricating evidence to mislead the ICO and dodge the law, describing it as “very clearly fraud.”
Reform’s Data Protection Officer told this outlet: “I would not have responded to Parkinson’s DSAR because it is in my view abusive.”
They quoted the email from Parkinson which stated: “Reform UK is a racist bigoted party with values reflective of the Nazi party. Reform has no place in British politics. You demonise vulnerable parts of society, much like the Nazis did with Jews and other marginalised groups.”
Reform cited ICO guidance which says that a request may be “manifestly unfounded” if “the request is malicious in intent and is being used to harass an organisation with no real purpose other than to cause disruption.”
Don’t miss a story
The spokesperson for Reform added: “I vigorously reject the ‘allegations that Reform UK provided fabricated evidence to the ICO in response to a subject access request and erasure request made by a member of the public…’ We would never do such a thing under any circumstances To accuse us of this over such a trifling DSAR is egregious and utterly ridiculous.”
“I have wasted the best part of the day dealing with this and I have quite frankly had enough of individuals like Parkinson. Dreaming up conspiracy theories etc.”
And they claimed Parkinson’s allegations of fabricating evidence were “utter nonsense.”
The issue of their supposed response to him being sent before he even made his claim would be “a case of cock up and not conspiracy.” They claimed they in fact responded to him on June 20th. But they could not find evidence of the supposed March correspondence because: “I have no access to my former colleague’s email to the ICO relating to this case.”
“We would never fabricate documentation for any reason, ever; particulalry [sic] over such a trifling matter as a disorganised response to an abusive DSAR [data subject access request].”
‘It’s Time for a Debate About Who Owns Our Media’ Says Leader of the UK’s Trade Union Movement
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak warns that tech and media billionaires are threatening our democracy, as they campaign to destroy the BBC
However, they accepted that they missed the legal deadline to respond to Parkinson’s request.
Parkinson told Byline Times: “The ICO [said] Reform had ‘tried’ to get in contact with me and couldn’t…The ’email’ they claim to have sent to me [is] very clearly not in the format of an email, and the date on it is before the original email I sent to Reform.”
“[I’ve] escalated the issue and pointed out that Reform is very clearly lying,” he said.
“I think this is emblematic of the deceit that cuts right to the heart of Reform.”
The apparent email from Reform to Parkinson stated: “Rest assured we do not hold any of your data. The leaflet that you received was an “electoral address”. Candidates and political parties have a right to send an “election address” by Freepost, either addressed to each individual elector or unaddressed to each postal address. This applies to elections for the UK or Scottish Parliament, for the Northern Ireland Assembly or National Assembly for Wales, or for the European Parliament [sic], or a particular referendum.
“This type of Freepost mailing does not constitute direct marketing. We don’t collect or store any personal data from this, most parties will send you an election address. You are not on a marketing list. Regards, Data Protection Officer.”
Asked what changes had been made to comply with the law in future, Reform’s data protection officer added: “RUK has employed a new Data Protection Officer and team to reform our approach and processes regarding DSARs.”
A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “We can confirm that we are assessing a complaint. We are unable to comment on ongoing cases.”
Reform Councillor Accused of Flouting Transparency Rules After Refusing to Declare His Company
Councillor in flagship Reform council failed to name his firm on his register of interests, or respond to questions about it from his constituent, prompting a formal complaint
Timeline
March 2025: Charles Parkinson receives a promotional leaflet from Reform UK and sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) on 27 March, requesting information about what data they held and asking to be removed from their lists.
April-May 2025: Parkinson sends multiple follow-up emails (27 April, 3 May, 12 May, 21 May) reminding Reform UK of their legal obligation to respond within one month under GDPR. No response is received.
June 2025: Parkinson escalates the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
August 2025: The ICO confirm they have established contact with Reform UK and asked them to respond to the SAR, the data erasure request, and cease marketing communications.
October 2025: This is where the alleged misleading occurs. The ICO informs Parkinson that Reform UK claimed they had “attempted to communicate” but couldn’t reach his mailbox. Reform UK provided the ICO with what they claimed was an email they had tried to send – seemingly sent before Parkinson had even contacted the party, and with no metadata included to prove its authenticity.
November 2025: Reform UK admits to Byline Times they missed the legal deadline to respond but says allegations of wrongdoing were “cock up and not conspiracy.”
Got a story? Get in touch in confidence on josiah@bylinetimes.com
holding farage to account #reformUNCOVERED
While most the rest of the media seems to happy to give the handful of Reform MPs undue prominence, Byline Times is committed to tracking the activities of Nigel Farage’s party when actually in power
Contribute to our #ReformUncovered crowdfunder
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
