BHF and RSPCA will not appeal data protection fines

The British Heart Foundation and RSPCA have announced they will not appeal the Information Commissioner’s Office imposed on them at the end of last year.

The ICO in December fined RSPCA £25,000 and BHF £18,000 for breaches of the Data Protection Act.

BHF chief executive Simon Gillespie said at the time that trustees were considering whether to appeal the fines. While the charity maintains that key aspects of the ICO’s findings are “wrong, disproportionate and inconsistent”, trustees have decided to pay in order to settle the matter.

Even a successful appeal would cost more than paying the penalty, Gillespie said in a statement, and swift settlement means the penalty is reduced to £14,400.

“This approach avoids what would no doubt be a costly and time intensive appeal process, distracting the BHF from our core work and key goals,” he said.

A small group of supporters approached BHF offering to pay the penalty, Gillespie said, as they also believe it is “unfair and unmerited”. The chief executive said the charity is grateful for the support.

BHF had already stopped all practices criticised by the ICO before the watchdog’s intervention, the charity said, and in June the commissioner was not able to suggest any improvements for the BHF's information handling practices.

“Moving forward we will work closely with the ICO, the Institute of Fundraising, Fundraising Regulator and the Charity Commission alongside the rest of the charity sector to ensure the BHF meets best practice and the expectations of our generous supporters in handling their data and our fundraising processes,” Gillespie said.

Similarly, the RSPCA disagrees with many aspects of the ICO’s decision. But the costs of an appeal and forfeiting the reduction for early payment led the charity to decide against challenging the penalty.

“We paid the penalty from income investments rather than from direct donations,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “We also wanted to move on from the decision and not be distracted from our vital animal welfare work by an expensive and time consuming appeal process.”