An individual's right under GDPR Article 15 and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 to obtain a copy of all personal data an organisation holds about them, along with information about how that data is processed, shared, and retained.
Key Takeaways
SARs are one of the most operationally demanding data protection obligations for HR teams. When an employee (current or former) submits a SAR, the organisation must search across every system and file that might contain their personal data: HRIS, email, shared drives, messaging platforms, paper files, CCTV systems, access logs, payroll records, and performance management tools. The 30-day clock starts when the request is received, not when HR gets around to looking at it. Missing the deadline is a compliance failure that the ICO can investigate and penalise. SARs have increased significantly in recent years, driven by greater awareness of data rights, the rise of no-win-no-fee employment claims, and the strategic use of SARs in litigation. Many employment solicitors advise clients to submit a SAR as the first step before bringing a tribunal claim, because it forces the employer to reveal all data, including internal emails and notes that might support a discrimination or unfair dismissal case.
SARs operate under parallel legal frameworks in the EU and the UK, with minor differences since Brexit.
Article 15 gives data subjects the right to obtain from the controller: confirmation that their personal data is being processed, a copy of that personal data, and supplementary information including: the purposes of processing, the categories of personal data concerned, the recipients or categories of recipients, the retention period (or the criteria used to determine it), the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, the source of the data (if not collected from the data subject directly), the existence of automated decision-making (including profiling), and information about any transfers to third countries.
The UK Data Protection Act 2018 supplements the UK GDPR. Key differences from the EU framework: the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) is the supervisory authority, fines follow the UK GDPR maximum (GBP 17.5M or 4% of global turnover), and certain exemptions apply under Schedule 2 of the DPA 2018 (including for legal professional privilege, management forecasting, and negotiations with the data subject). Post-Brexit, the UK operates its own data protection regime (the UK GDPR), which is largely identical to the EU GDPR but can diverge through future legislation.
A structured process is essential for meeting the 30-day deadline and avoiding compliance failures.
A SAR doesn't have to use the words "subject access request." Any request for personal data triggers the obligation. It can be verbal, by email, through a web form, or via social media. Train all staff to recognise SARs and escalate them immediately. Log the date received (this starts the 30-day clock), the identity of the requester, the scope of the request (specific data or everything), and the assigned handler.
You must be reasonably confident the request is from the data subject (or an authorised representative). For employees, this is usually straightforward if the request comes from their work email. For former employees or external requests, you may need to request photo ID, proof of address, or security questions. Verification must be proportionate. Don't ask for excessive documentation. The ICO has criticised organisations that use identity verification as a delaying tactic.
Search all systems where personal data may be held: HRIS, payroll, email (including archived and deleted items in retention), instant messaging, shared drives, paper files, CCTV, access control logs, call recordings, social media monitoring tools, and any third-party processors (recruitment agencies, occupational health providers, benefits platforms). Personal data includes anything that identifies or relates to the individual: name, employee ID, opinions about them, performance ratings, disciplinary notes, and internal communications that mention them.
Before disclosing, review all data for: third-party personal data (you can't disclose data about other identifiable individuals without their consent or unless it's reasonable to do so), legally privileged material (exempt under Schedule 2, Part 5 of the DPA 2018), confidential references (exempt if given in confidence for employment, education, or training purposes), management planning information (exempt if disclosure would prejudice management forecasting or planning), and negotiations information (exempt if disclosure would prejudice negotiations with the data subject). Redaction must be done carefully. Over-redacting can be challenged; under-redacting can breach other individuals' data protection rights.
Provide the data in a commonly used electronic format (PDF, CSV) unless the request was made in paper form. Include the supplementary information required by Article 15 (purposes, categories, recipients, retention, rights). If the response will take longer than 30 days due to the volume or complexity of the request, notify the individual within 30 days explaining the extension and the reasons for it. The maximum extension is 2 additional months (3 months total).
SARs from employees and former employees create unique challenges that don't arise in other SAR contexts.
It's increasingly common for employees to submit SARs during or shortly before bringing a tribunal claim. The SAR forces the employer to disclose emails, notes, and internal communications that might support a discrimination, harassment, or unfair dismissal claim. While the motivation behind a SAR doesn't affect the obligation to respond, HR teams should be aware that: every internal email mentioning the employee by name is potentially disclosable, informal or careless comments in internal communications can become evidence, and the SAR response may be used to compare against the employer's tribunal disclosure (highlighting inconsistencies).
An employee asking for "all my personal data" requires a genuinely thorough search. However, you can ask the requester to clarify the scope. If an employee has been with the organisation for 15 years and sends a SAR for "everything," it's reasonable to ask: "Can you help us focus the search? Are you looking for data from a specific time period, system, or topic?" Asking for clarification doesn't stop the 30-day clock unless the SAR genuinely can't be responded to without the additional information (in which case the clock starts when clarification is received).
The DPA 2018 Schedule 2 provides several exemptions that allow employers to withhold certain data from a SAR response.
| Exemption | DPA 2018 Reference | When It Applies |
|---|---|---|
| Legal professional privilege | Schedule 2, Part 5, Para 19 | Data subject to legal privilege (communications with lawyers for legal advice or litigation purposes) |
| Confidential references | Schedule 2, Part 4, Para 24 | References given (not received) in confidence for employment, education, or training. References received about the individual aren't exempt. |
| Management forecasting | Schedule 2, Part 4, Para 22 | Data processed for management forecasting or planning where disclosure would prejudice those activities |
| Negotiations | Schedule 2, Part 4, Para 23 | Data about the employer's intentions in negotiations with the data subject where disclosure would prejudice those negotiations |
| Crime prevention and detection | Schedule 2, Part 1, Para 2 | Data processed for preventing or detecting crime, apprehending or prosecuting offenders, where disclosure would prejudice those purposes |
| Third-party data | GDPR Article 15(4) / DPA 2018 s.45 | Data that would reveal personal data about another identifiable individual (must be redacted unless the third party consents or it's reasonable to disclose) |
Organisations can refuse a SAR only in very limited circumstances.
A request is manifestly unfounded if the individual clearly has no intention of exercising their data protection rights. Examples include requests made purely to cause disruption or harassment. The bar is extremely high, and the ICO expects organisations to demonstrate (not just assert) that the request is unfounded. In practice, this exemption is almost never applied to employment SARs because the individual typically does have a legitimate interest in their personal data.
A request may be excessive if it's repetitive (the individual has already received a response and is submitting the same request again without reasonable interval) or the volume of data is so large that compliance would be disproportionate. Even then, the organisation can't simply refuse. It must either charge a reasonable fee for the administrative cost or refuse to act. In either case, it must inform the individual within 30 days, explain why, and tell them about their right to complain to the ICO. Exercising this exemption is risky. If the ICO disagrees with the assessment, the organisation has committed a compliance failure.
Failing to respond to a SAR within the deadline, providing an incomplete response, or wrongly refusing a request can trigger enforcement action.
The ICO can issue: assessment notices (requiring the organisation to demonstrate compliance), enforcement notices (requiring specific action to comply with the SAR), and monetary penalty notices of up to GBP 17.5 million or 4% of global annual turnover (whichever is higher) for serious infringements. In practice, fines at the maximum level for SAR failures alone are rare, but the ICO has issued six-figure fines for systemic failures to handle data subject requests. The ICO also publishes enforcement actions, creating reputational damage.
Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR, individuals can claim compensation for material and non-material damage caused by data protection breaches, including SAR failures. Compensation claims can be brought in the county court (or High Court) without going through the ICO first. Awards for distress caused by failure to comply with a SAR have ranged from GBP 500 to GBP 12,500 in reported cases, with higher awards where the failure was deliberate or caused significant distress.
Data on the volume and handling of subject access requests in the UK.