FCA Dear CEO letter on expectations of SIPP operators
In November the FCA issued a "Dear CEO letter" on its priorities and expectations in relation to SIPP operators.
The FCA says that there remain approximately 800 open complaints at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) relating to SIPP due diligence. The FCA expects firms receiving a lead decision from FOS to take appropriate action to resolve complaints as quickly as possible.
The FCA says it has "growing concerns" that some firms have not been operating trustee bank accounts with adequate controls and oversight. It is also concerned that some firms' records, particularly in relation to the assets being held for the pension scheme, are not being appropriately maintained and updated. The FCA expects SIPP operators to review their controls over pension scheme bank accounts to ensure they are robust, and to ensure their records are accurate and that there is adequate oversight by the firm's Senior Manager function holders. The FCA plans to conduct more in person site visits with a particular focus on record keeping.
The FCA has concerns that some firms are not yet fully compliant with the Consumer Duty. It says that whilst all firms understood their role as "manufacturer", many remained unclear about their role as "distributors". The FCA says that SIPP operators are distributors because they sell a product when they grant rights under a personal pension scheme to a member. The FCA also says that some firms have not specified the target market for their products "at a sufficiently granular level" and have assessed the value of their product primarily through market comparisons without analysing their own costs and margins. The FCA also found that some firms had not adequately implemented the Consumer Duty for closed products and services.
The FCA says that it will continue to use the Senior Managers & Certification Regime to engage directly with accountable individuals on significant areas of concern.
New regulations deal with points arising from abolition of the lifetime allowance
Two new sets of regulations addressing points of detail relating to abolition of the lifetime allowance (LTA) took effect on 18 November 2024 with retrospective effect from 6 April 2024 onwards.
The Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 deal with a number of points relating to lump sums and death benefits. These include a requirement for an individual who is issued with a "transitional tax free amount certificate" (TTFAC) to send a copy of that certificate to each other scheme of which the individual is a member within 90 days or before any relevant benefit crystallisation event, and to notify the other schemes if the certificate is subsequently cancelled. In its Newsletter 165 HMRC clarifies that the earliest date from which the 90 day period can begin to run is 18 November 2024.
The regulations also make amendments relating to individuals who benefited from LTA protections. These include an amendment so that when an individual has pension rights of more than £1.5 million and is relying on primary protection, the applicable lump sum allowance is £375,000 and the individual's protected lump sum and death benefit allowance is £1.8 million.
The Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) (No. 3) Regulations 2024 also make a number of technical amendments regarding the detail of how the legislation relating to abolition of the LTA will operate. These include an amendment to ensure that a lump sum paid in reliance on an erroneous TTFAC remains an authorised payment, with any excess above the amount which should have been authorised taxed at the member's marginal rate.
For more information on both sets of regulations, see HMRC's Newsletter 163.
Government confirms commitment to existing published dashboards timetable
In a parliamentary statement made on 22 October 2024 the Minister for Pensions confirmed the Government's commitment to the existing published timetable for schemes to connect to the pensions dashboard ecosystem including the overall connection deadline of 31 October 2026. The statement says that it is essential that the pensions industry continues to prepare for connection, having regard to the timetable set out in the DWP's guidance.
Rules for transfers to EEA/Gibraltar schemes brought into line with rest of world
As part of the Budget, it was announced that with effect from 30 October 2024, the exclusion from the overseas transfer charge (OTC) that applied to members transferring to a QROPS ("qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme") in the EEA or Gibraltar has been removed. The transfer will now be subject to an OTC unless the member has sufficient overseas transfer allowance and one of the other exclusions applies (eg the member is resident in the country that the QROPS is based in). Where before 30 October 2024 the member had already requested a transfer to a QROPS in the EEA or Gibraltar, the exclusion of the OTC will apply provided the transfer is completed before 30 April 2025.
The Government also announced in the Budget that from 6 April 2025 the conditions for a scheme to be a recognised overseas pension scheme (ROPS) established in the EEA will be brought into line with those applicable to the rest of the world. This will mean that additional requirements regarding the regulation of such schemes may apply, and for a scheme to be a ROPS established in the EEA, it must be established in a country with which the UK either has a double taxation agreement or a Tax Information Exchange Agreement.
Ombudsman finds that requiring widow to set up new SIPP to receive death benefits was maladministration
The Pensions Ombudsman has found that a pension provider committed maladministration in requiring a deceased member's widow to establish a separate SIPP and transfer the deceased member's pension fund into that before she could take flexi-access drawdown (Mrs Y CAS-38697-T1F1). For more detail, click here.
Court of Appeal overturns court order that allowed enforcement of debt against pension fund
In the case of Manolete Partners PLC v White, the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court judgment which would have required a member to draw down his entire pension fund from his SSAS in order to enable the member's creditor to enforce a judgment debt. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court order breached section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 which provides that no order can be made by a court if the effect would be that a member would be restrained from receiving a pension under an occupational pension scheme. For more detail, click here.
HMRC warns that payment of a tax free lump sum cannot be "undone"
In its Newsletter 165 HMRC says it is aware that some schemes are being asked by members how they can return payments of pension commencement lump sums (PCLS) or uncrystallised funds pension lump sums (UFPLS) that they took because of speculation about changes that might occur in the 2024 Autumn Budget. HMRC says that FCA "cooling off" rules only apply to the purchase of new products such as annuities. They do not apply to payment of a PCLS or UFPLS, as such lump sums are not new products. HMRC says that payment of a tax-free lump sum cannot be undone. It warns that unauthorised payments charges may apply if contributions to pension schemes are made out of tax free lump sums and the conditions for the "recycling" rule are met.
Pensions Investment Review: Government proposes minimum size and maximum number for default funds
On 14 November the Government published an interim report on its Pensions Investment Review and launched a consultation "Pensions Investment Review: Unlocking the UK pensions market for growth". The consultation proposes radical changes to the statutory regime applicable to multi-employer DC pension schemes (including both master trusts and group personal pension schemes). The Government plans to introduce a minimum size for "default funds" (broadly, the funds into which contributions are invested where a member does not make an active investment choice) and a limit on the number of default funds. The minimum size and maximum number will be set following consultation and the Government proposes that the new requirements will apply from 2030 at the earliest.
The consultation closed on 16 January 2025. The Government has not yet decided whether to include the proposed measures in the forthcoming Pension Schemes Bill or subsequent legislation.
Our thoughts
The Government is keen to see UK pension funds invest a greater proportion of their assets in UK investments, particularly "productive assets" such as UK infrastructure. An underlying driver for the consolidation proposals is that only large funds have the necessary scale to consider investing in large infrastructure projects. However, at this stage the Government is not seeking to restrict the freedom of investment currently enjoyed by private sector UK pension funds. We don't yet know what the maximum number or minimum size of default funds will be. However, the direction of travel is clearly towards a smaller number of larger schemes serving the vast majority of DC members whose pension pots are invested in default options. We are therefore likely to see consolidation within the personal pension schemes market.
FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service call for input on modernising redress system
In November 2024 the FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) issued a Call for Input (CfI) on modernising the system for customers seeking redress from financial services firms. The CfI says that the current redress framework works well for individual customer complaints about specific issues, but that "challenges can occur" when there are a large number of complaints about the same issue ("mass redress events"). The CfI seeks views on how the current redress framework could be improved, problems caused by mass redress events, and what changes could be made to how the FCA and FOS work together to ensure their views on regulatory requirements are consistent.
Specific areas covered in the CfI include:
- whether rule changes/further guidance are needed regarding the duty on firms to proactively identify and address harm to customers;
- whether there should be restrictions on the circumstances in which firms and complainants can request an ombudsman decision where they disagree with the preliminary decision made by the Financial Ombudsman's investigator;
- whether there should be a return to firms being permitted to operate a two stage complaints handling procedure;
- whether the rules on dismissing claims should be amended to enable FOS to reject complaints collectively without individual consideration where claims management companies (CMCs) send poorly particularised claims in bulk or claims that are not well-evidenced;
- whether the rules should be amended to allow FOS to pass cases back to firms if the FCA decides to implement an applicable industry-wide redress scheme;
- whether FOS should have the power to pause cases while it seeks input from the FCA on its interpretation of rules or guidance;
- whether there are additional factors which FOS should take into account in assessing what is "fair and reasonable";
- whether there should be changes to the time limits for making complaints, particularly where an individual only becomes aware of possible cause for complaint many years after the event; and
- whether there should be changes to the rules requiring the FCA to be notified of issues likely to give rise to large numbers of claims. This includes where there should be a duty on claims management companies to make notifications to the FCA.
The deadline for responses to the CfI is 30 January 2025.
New FCA webpages on consumer redress liabilities
On 14 January 2025 the FCA published two new webpages on consumer redress liabilities.
One webpage sets out the FCA's position on what firms should and should not do in relation to "polluting behaviour" and meeting their redress liabilities. The FCA defines "polluter behaviour" as occurring when a firm or individual takes steps to leave behind potential or actual redress liabilities generated in the course of their regulated activities. It sets out a list of dos and don'ts for firms. "Dos" include ensuring that any potential and actual redress liabilities have been provisioned for and addressed, for example that where a business is sold, the sale proceeds or other assets have been ring-fenced to cover the transferring firms redress liabilities. "Don'ts" include altering the corporate structure to separate assets from consumer liabilities, for example by transferring assets to a holding company that is not subject to FCA regulation.
The other webpage sets out the various types of "polluting behaviours" the FCA has come across and the FCA's expectations of firms. The common thread to the various types of behaviour is that they generally involve transactions or restructurings that allow a business to continue without the company operating the business having the legal liability to make redress payments to past customers of the business. Another type of polluting behaviour is "fronting" where one or more individuals with a clean regulatory history are put forward as the controllers or managers of the firm in an authorisation application when those individuals are a "front" for the real controllers or managers who are individuals with a poor regulatory record.
The FCA makes clear that it expects to be notified immediately if a firm becomes aware that it may not be able to meet its redress liabilities in full. Where accountable individuals seek to leave liabilities behind by restructuring or moving to another firm, the FCA will "seriously question" their fitness and propriety to hold a role that requires FCA approval.
Advice Guidance Boundary Review: proposed targeted support reforms for pensions
In December 2024 the FCA published a consultation paper on allowing pension providers to provide "targeted support" to scheme members. The driver for the proposals is that the FCA wants pension scheme members to have easy access to "trusted and affordable pension support".
The FCA recognises that there is currently a gap in the market. At one end of the scale there is regulated holistic advice with a personal recommendation, but a recent survey by the FCA found that less than 10% of UK consumers had taken regulated financial advice in the past 12 months. At the other end of the scale there is access to generic factual information which can leave people feeling unsupported with their choices because it is not tailored at all. The FCA is proposing a new "targeted support" model which would fall between those two extremes. Under targeted support, a firm would pre-define scenarios in which to provide support and then pre-define groups of consumers with common characteristics who it believes would benefit from such support. It would then provide the same suggestion to all consumers falling within that segment.
An example of targeted support could involve a provider telling a 60-year-old scheme member, 'We suggest an initial drawdown rate of 3.0% a year for an income that could be increased with inflation each year. This suggestion is based on a rate which is considered appropriate for people in similar circumstances with similar needs as you: early 60s, who want their pot to last their lifetime, where the pot is invested in a medium-risk fund, with charges in the range of 0.5%-0.75% a year.'
At this stage the FCA is consulting on its "direction of travel" rather than specific rules. It expects to consult in summer 2025 on the rules that would create a new framework. The current consultation runs until 13 February 2025.
FCA announces temporary flexibility for firms to comply with naming and marketing sustainability rules
In a statement published in September 2024, the FCA announced that it was offering some flexibility on complying with naming and marketing rules under its Sustainability Disclosure Requirements regime. The rules came into force on 2 December 2024. In relation to a UK authorised investment fund which is a "sustainability product", firms will have until 5pm on 2 April 2025 to comply where the firm:
- has submitted a completed application for approval of amended disclosures in line with ESG 5.3.2R for that fund by 5pm on 1 October 2024; and
- is currently using one or more of the terms "sustainable", "sustainability" or "impact" (or a variation of those terms) in the name of that fund and is intending either to use a label or to change the name of that fund.
The FCA says that it expects firms to comply with the rules before 2 April 2025 if they can. Firms must continue to comply with all other relevant rules, including the anti-greenwashing rule.
FCA publishes modification to allow projections to show effect of increasing contributions
In September 2024 the FCA published a revised "Modification by consent" to allow pension providers to include with a statutory money purchase illustration (SMPI) an additional projection to show how projected benefits might be improved if the member were to increase regular contributions. Firms wanting to take advantage of the modification by consent need to e-mail the FCA at centralwaiversteam@fca.org.uk. The FCA will then write to the firm with confirmation that the modification has been granted. The modification is valid until 30 September 2026.
FCA publishes research on what factors influence engagement with member communications
In September 2024 the FCA published an Occasional Paper on research looking at factors that influence whether members engage with pensions communications. The research looked at the impact of different e-mail subject lines and content on levels of individuals' engagement. It found that subject lines which highlighted "the future you" and just "a few more steps" could drive higher initial engagement, as measured by open rates. A second experiment highlighted the value of pre-testing e-mails. The graphic and colourful e-mails tested by the researchers proved to be off-putting and potentially raised doubts about the trustworthiness of the e-mails. Overall the research showed that it is challenging to drive initial engagement with pensions through e-mails, and that adjusting the timing of e-mails may have limited scope to affect engagement levels.
FCA discussion paper on possible rule changes re SIPPs
The FCA has published a discussion paper (DP24/3) seeking views on possible rule changes including in relation to SIPPs.
Issues specific to SIPPs
The FCA sees SIPPs as broadly falling into three categories: "Bespoke" where a SIPP offers access to a wide range of asset classes such as commercial property or other unregulated investments; "Streamlined" or "simple" SIPPs that allow access to a wide range of assets via a single platform service; and "Ready-made", a SIPP that offers access to a limited range of pre-selected investments such as risk-rated model portfolios. It seeks views on whether respondents agree with its description of the type of SIPP products available and how the SIPP market might be segregated to ensure the differing needs of consumers are met.
The FCA is also considering setting out the due diligence obligations of SIPP operators in more detailed Handbook rules and seeks views on this.
The FCA expresses concern that some SIPP providers do not maintain adequate oversight and control over trustee bank accounts. It is concerned that many firms rely on external bank transaction data to update their internal records and perform reconciliation activities and that this could result in shortfalls through fraud or error not being picked up. It is also concerned that the practice of SIPP assets being held by a non-FCA-authorised bare trustee can mean that there is a lack of requirements on the scheme operator to cover record-keeping and oversight of scheme assets. The FCA thinks it may be appropriate to apply a more prescriptive approach to the control of monies by scheme operators and seeks views on this.
Tools and modellers
The FCA seeks views on whether current rules on pension projections are fit for purpose or whether they are a barrier to firms developing effective tools and modellers. In particular, it asks whether existing rules requiring any projection to include three projections at different growth rates may in practice cause confusion which results in consumers not engaging with pension projections.
Pension transfers and consolidation
The FCA expresses concern that members may sometimes be consolidating their pension pots based on short-term incentives to transfer and/or without understanding the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the transferring and receiving schemes. The FCA also raises concern about inefficiencies in the transfer process, whilst recognising that there may be a tension between processing transfers as quickly as possible and taking steps to encourage members to properly consider their transfer decision. The FCA invites views on these issues, including on whether schemes should adopt a consistent approach to bringing specific product features to a member's attention before proceeding with a transfer.
Deadline for responses
The deadline for responses to the discussion paper is 27 February 2025.
FCA consults on PISCES, a new private stock market
The FCA is consulting on proposals for a new platform on which shares in private companies will be bought and sold. The platform will be known as the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System (PISCES). The consultation closes on 17 February 2025.
Member loses appeal against revocation of fixed protection
In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Lefort v HMRC, the FTT has dismissed a member's appeal against HMRC's revocation of his fixed protection 2014 (FP 2014) following payment of a contribution into the member's SIPP by his employer after the cut-off date 5 April 2014.
The legislation governing FP 2014 provides that FP 2014 will cease to apply if "relevant benefit accrual" occurs on or after 6 April 2014. In relation to a money purchase scheme, the circumstances giving rise to relevant benefit accrual include a contribution being paid in respect of an individual by the individual's employer.
Mr L's terms of employment provided that his employer would make contributions into his SIPP subject to Mr L making contributions into the SIPP at a minimum rate. Mr L's employment ended on 28 February 2014 and Mr L made his final contribution to the scheme on 14 March 2014. However, the final contribution by his employer was made on 5 May 2014, resulting in HMRC revoking Mr L's FP 2014.
The member's arguments were not entirely consistent, but the crux of his argument was that the employer had made the contribution late and that, had it been paid on time, it would have been paid before 6 April 2014. Alternatively he argued that he was not entitled to the contribution at all. The FTT concluded that the wording of the legislation meant that HMRC was entitled to revoke FP 2014 where a contribution was made by an individual's employer on behalf of that individual on or after 6 April 2014. This was the case regardless of the wider facts. There was no requirement that HMRC had to establish the member's entitlement to the contribution in order to revoke FP 2014.
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider reasonable excuse for late notification in fixed protection 2012 case
In the case of Haigh v HMRC, the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) has held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether a member had a reasonable excuse for giving late notification that he wished to opt for fixed protection 2012 (FP 2012). It was common ground that the member's notification had been given more than 10 years after the statutory deadline of 5 April 2012. HMRC refused to accept the notification. The member said that he was not informed of the lifetime allowance provisions by his pension scheme providers or administrators.
The FTT held that the member's appeal against HMRC's decision had to fail, as the relevant legislation did not give the FTT any power to consider the issue of reasonable excuse. On an appeal against HMRC's refusal to accept notice in relation to FP 2012, the FTT's sole jurisdiction was to consider whether the HMRC had been entitled to take the view that the notice did not satisfy the statutory requirements regarding form, content and date of receipt by HMRC. The relevant regulations were notably worded differently from the regulations dealing with enhanced protection which did expressly allow the FTT to consider the issue of reasonable excuse on appeal.
Pensions Ombudsman explains expedited decision-making and Resolution process
The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has published a blog on his plans to speed up decision-making through the use of "Expedited Determinations" in appropriate cases. Expedited decision-making will be used in cases TPO has assessed as having a clear outcome, for example where the member wants a scheme to honour a cash equivalent transfer value but the member did not meet the statutory time limit for requesting a transfer value.
TPO has also published a factsheet on the role of the Resolution team. The Resolution team will generally be used for complaints which TPO considers can be resolved informally through the parties reaching an agreement. If a case progresses to formal adjudication, any attempt to resolve a complaint during the Resolution process (eg one party making an offer to the other) will not be treated as an admission of wrongdoing or weakness by the relevant party.
Harnessing Generative AI: a practical legal guide
We are seeing increasing recognition of the potential for generative AI to be used by pension providers, for example to increase member engagement by producing more personalised communications. Our Commercial Team has produced a practical legal guide on Harnessing Generative AI. The guide identifies key topics to consider and the key areas of risk and how to mitigate them. To obtain a copy of the guide, click here.
Authorised surplus payments to employers: HMRC sets out its view of the tax calculation
Surpluses in SSASs are relatively infrequent, but do arise. In its Newsletter 163 HMRC has set out its interpretation of how the tax should be calculated when an authorised surplus payment is made to a scheme's sponsoring employer. The Finance Act 2004 says that, "The rate of the charge is 25% in respect of the authorised surplus payment." There are two possible interpretations of what this means. One effectively treats the amount received by the employer as the gross amount, so if the employer receives £1,200,000 the amount of tax due is 25% x £1,200,000 = £300,000. The alternative calculation treats the amount received by the employer as a payment net of tax at 25%. So if the employer receives £1,200,000, that amount must be grossed up to arrive at the total surplus payment on which 25% tax is due, giving a gross surplus payment of £1,600,000, attracting a 25% tax charge of £400,000. Perhaps unsurprisingly, HMRC's view is that the second approach set out above is the correct one.
Our thoughts
We consider that there are strong arguments for challenging the HMRC view, but that would require someone to bring a test case. That will only happen if there's enough money at stake to make such a course of action worthwhile.
HMRC Newsletter 165: tax treatment of pension payments to trustees in bankruptcy
In its Newsletter 165, HMRC says that a statement in its Pension schemes newsletter 93 regarding the tax treatment of pension payments to trustees in bankruptcy was incorrect. HMRC says that its view is that such payments are taxable only at the basic rate even if the member is a higher rate taxpayer. HMRC says that payments to the trustee in bankruptcy are considered paid to the member under the Finance Act 2004, but are not regarded as part of the member's income. HMRC says that such payments should be treated as income received by the trustee in bankruptcy.
All administrators of registered pension schemes required to be UK resident from 6 April 2026
It was announced in the Budget that from 6 April 2026 all administrators of registered pension schemes must be resident in the UK. Currently the law allows for scheme administrators to be resident outside the UK, but within the EU or EEA. Where SSAS member trustees are also scheme administrators for the purposes of the Finance Act 2004, this measure could impact member trustees' ability to continue to act as scheme administrators if a member moves abroad or is resident in an EU or EEA member state.
Court considers dependency test for cohabiting partners
In the judgment in Thomas v Southwark Council the High Court has given guidance on the test to be applied for the purposes of considering whether two individuals are "financially interdependent" where that is one of the conditions to be satisfied in order for a survivor's pension to be payable under the scheme rules. For more information, click here.
FCA, ICO and TPR issue joint statement re direct marketing rules
The FCA, ICO and the Pensions Regulator (TPR) have issued a joint statement intended to provide greater clarity for firms and pension scheme trustees on sending communications in line with the Consumer Duty or TPR's Code of Practice and guidance without contravening direct marketing rules under data protection law. The statement says that firms and trustees can provide "regulatory communication messages" to customers even if they don't have direct marketing permissions from them "provided these messages are not direct marketing". The statement says that firms should use a neutral tone and avoid active promotion or encouragement when communicating facts to customers.
The statement contains a non-exhaustive list of examples of communications that can be drafted in a way that are unlikely to be direct marketing. These include:
- factually describing the details of different decumulation options to help customers make an informed choice;
- warning customers that they are at risk of having an inadequate pension income in retirement or drawing down their pension at an unsustainable rate; and
- helping customers to understand their pensions product by explaining jargon and signalling where customers can go for support.
Renters' Rights Bill could cause issues for schemes holding residential property
The Renters' Rights Bill currently making its way through Parliament will bring in fundamental reform of the law governing residential tenancies in England. The reforms could cause issues for SIPPs and SSASs holding residential property. It is relatively unusual for SIPPs and SSASs to hold residential property, as it is generally classed as "taxable property" thereby attracting penal tax charges. However, there are some exceptions to the principle that residential property is taxable property. One such exception is where the residential property is used in connection with business premises, eg the scheme holds shop premises including a flat above the shop that is occupied by the trader in connection with operating the shop's business. (For this exemption to apply, the trader must not be a member of the scheme or "connected" with such a member.)
Once the Bill becomes law, a landlord will generally only be able to terminate a residential tenancy on a limited number of grounds. A related commercial lease coming to an end is not a ground for terminating a residential tenancy, raising the risk that a tenant could cease to carry on business in commercial property whilst retaining the right to live in the related residential property indefinitely. This would take the residential property outside the scope of the taxable property exemption meaning that HMRC could impose penal tax charges. Where a tenancy has already been entered into, there may be little scope for mitigating this risk. Schemes considering entering into leases in future in reliance on the exemption should take legal advice on possible strategies to mitigate the risk.
HMRC announces change to tax code practice
In its Newsletter 166 HMRC announced that from April 2025 it will improve the tax code information used for those people who are new to receiving a private pension by automatically updating the tax code for customers who are on a temporary tax code and would benefit from being on a cumulative code. This should reduce the number of scheme members who overpay tax. HMRC says that the rules for taxing first pension payments are not changing as part of this and the normal rules of PAYE will continue to apply.
Data (Use and Access) Bill to bring changes to law on DSARs
The Data (Use and Access) Bill currently making its way through Parliament is due to make changes to the law relating to data subject access requests (DSARs).
The Bill provides that where a data controller reasonably requires further information to identify the information or processing activities to which a DSAR relates, it may ask the data subject to provide this information, and this will stop the clock until the data subject provides the information. This will be particularly useful where a data controller holds a large amount of information about the individual submitting the DSAR.
The Bill also confirms that a data controller only has to conduct a "reasonable and proportionate" search in response to a DSAR. This principle was previously included in ICO guidance, but the Bill enshrines it in law.
