UK Research and Innovation

4. Mr A complains about the service he received from UK Research and Innovation. He complains that:

• His application for funding was rejected for reasons that amount to age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 • UKRI staff accessed his personal unlisted You Tube video files without authorisation and the organisation has failed to provide an explanation or justification for this. Mr A asked UKRI to investigate employee’s computer history to search for evidence, but it declined to do so.

5. Mr A explained that these events have affected his mental health, and he has had to be treated by his GP because of this. This also led to an increase in his drinking, which in turn resulted in his diabetes becoming out of control.

6. Mr A has also been impacted financially by the loss of opportunity to achieve a patent for his product.

7. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr A is seeking financial compensation and an apology.

8. Mr A applied to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for funding on a project he was working on. During the application process, he wrote to UKRI about a description in the process which he felt amounted to age discrimination. UKRI provided an explanation, which Mr A initially accepted, and completed his application.

9. When the application was rejected in October 2023, Mr A requested feedback on the reasons for the rejection, and initially accepted the explanation provided.

10. However, he later spotted an anomaly where his scores had been rounded down. Mr A believes that age discrimination played a part in the decision and so raised a complaint to UKRI regarding this.

Age Discrimination

13. Mr A complains that his application for funding was rejected. He says the reasons provided amount to age discrimination, which is a breach of the Equality Act 2010

14. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mr A to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

15. Mr A has alleged that UKRI is in breach of the Equality Act 2010. During our investigation, we reviewed the UK Government Guidance ‘Reasonable adjustments: a legal duty’. This is a section of the Equality Act 2010, which currently forms the basis of anti-discrimination law in England. The act protects people against discrimination, harassment of victimisation in employment or as users of private and public services based on nine protected characteristics, including age.

16. The guidance includes the following information age discrimination:

17. “The Equality Act 2010 includes provisions that ban age discrimination against adults in the provision of services and public functions. The ban came into force on 1 October 2012, and it is now unlawful to discriminate based on age unless:

• the practice is covered by an exception from the ban • good reason can be shown for the differential treatment (‘objective justification’)

18. The ban on age discrimination is designed to ensure that the new law prohibits only harmful treatment that results in genuinely unfair discrimination because of age. It does not outlaw the many instances of different treatment that are justifiable or beneficial.”

19. In short, organisations such as UKRI have a legal duty to ensure that it does not prevent someone from accessing its services based upon their age.

20. Mr A’s claim is that UKRI has failed to adhere to its responsibility in this regard. A failure to do so could be considered a breach of the Equality Act.

21. We should explain at this point that we do not have the authority to determine whether the law has been broken. Only a court can do this. For that reason, we cannot take a view on whether UKRI has acted in line with the law. If Mr A wishes to pursue this matter, he would need to do so through the court process.

22. In conclusion, the appropriate route for Mr A to take here would be to seek advice from a solicitor regarding possible legal action. We therefore will end consideration of this point here.

Data Breach

23. Mr A complains that UKRI staff accessed his personal unlisted You Tube video files without authorisation and the organisation has failed to provide an explanation or justification for this. Mr A asked UKRI to investigate employee’s computer history to search for evidence, but it declined to do so.

24. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there is an organisation that is better placed to deal with the concerns. Some complaints can be looked at by us, and by other organisations. We have considered whether another organisation is better suited to giving an answer to the complaint and whether it can provide the outcome Mr A seeks.

25. Mr A’s complaint here is that UKRI (and its staff) have committed an act which breached his rights under The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR - is a comprehensive data protection law establishes guidelines for the collection and processing of person data of individuals).

26. He says that UKRI did this by accessing his personal data without valid cause or permission. He claims that parties accessed his information when they should not have had access to it.

27. While PHSO can look at matters regarding data breaches, the law says for any complaint we should consider whether there is a more appropriate body to investigate the matter.

28. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an executive non-departmental public body, created by the government to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals. It specialises in complaints of this nature and would be much better placed to consider whether Cafcass did anything wrong on this point.

29. With that in mind, we would end consideration of this point here and advise Mr A to contact the ICO.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). We would like to thank Mr A for bringing this matter to our attention and recognise that this has been a lengthy and frustrating process.

2. For Mr A’s first point, that his application for funding was rejected, we consider he could take legal action on the matter that has brought to us.

3. For the point he raises about a potential data breach, we consider that there would be a more appropriate place to raise this matter.