Considering I sent Mr. Haines a 54-page letter via Royal Mail, I find it hard to believe that the contents of the letter and the facts contained therein, where given due consideration.

1. The reply above states:

“… I must be clear that, as an organisation, we have a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination of any kind, and we refute the suggestion that our actions have been motivated by the colour of your skin.”

Here is a reminder of what I actually said:

“My skin colour is part of me, it makes up one of the self-evident characteristics of me. But it is just one of my characteristics.

My country of origin, my personal viewpoint, my religion, my ethics, my accent – my truths… none of these can be deduced from the appearance of my skin colour.

Unlike someone having a ‘bad hair day’ I cannot hide my skin colour under a hat and pop out to the shops or go about my business discretely incognito. Wherever I go, there my skin colour goes too.

I absolutely accept that.

But what I do not accept is when I am viewed and then discriminated against – whichever part of my ‘human beingness’ that may give rise to such discrimination.”

In my humble opinion if an organisation refuses to acknowledge the mere suggestion that an act of discrimination may have taken place within that said organisation, I posit there are deeper structural problems within that organisation than the one highlighted.

2. The reply also states:

“Your concerns about the CCTV and personal data you requested were reviewed by our head of data protection. We’re satisfied that we have provided you with all the available information that you requested…”

My legal Subject Access Request was ignored and not processed!

I simply do not understand how this Network Rail Executive Correspondence Manager can have the temerity to make this statement.

3. The reply further states:

“Subsequently, I understand that you escalated your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who explained that they could not take this matter any further.”

This just about sums up the gaslighting and absurdity of everything I have been going through.

The Information Commissioner’s Office stopped the investigation upon reading a letter from a Network Rail Manager which 100% lied about the fact that the CCTV failed to record me [quick link here]. Dated: 20 January 2020

This lie was exposed by Network Rail’s own Principle Data Protection Officer who said with absolute unequivocal clarity:

“The CCTV was recording at the time in question.” [quick link here]. Dated: 30 October 2020.

The ICO have been misled by a Network Rail Employee with reference to my personal data, and quite clearly remiss in their duty to follow up on such a deception.

The fact that the ICO have also failed to look into Network Rail’s absolute failure to process my Subject Access Request, which directly renders me as a helpless victim – does not validate or add credence to Network Rail procedures in this instance.

Why is it that I have to step outside of the statutory accident and reporting procedures and seek redress in the courts at additional expense. This is discriminatory for a myriad of reasons.

It also requires genuine victims to have the means and wherewithal to pursue legal redress. Maybe that’s where we already are as a nation and I just missed the memo.

So, my initial question remains:

Why was my Subject Access Request not processed in accordance with the law?

If it is a legal, universally accepted premise that Subject Access Requests have to be complied with, then I ask why wasn’t my request processed in accordance with this legal framework?

For those of you with know-how in this field or the expertise in setting up successful crowd-funding-type campaigns, please email me: barrychiv@xstar.co.uk

Thanking you in advance.