Last updated on September 3, 2025
By Kieron JH • The Reasonable Adjustment • August 20, 2025
When a company finds itself accused of mistreating disabled applicants, it has two choices:
- Address the concerns with transparency and accountability.
- Pretend the problem doesn’t exist, hope the noise dies down, and in doing so, pour petrol on the fire.
Greggs has chosen option two.
The Impossible Response
On 2 August 2025, I submitted a lawful Subject Access Request (SAR) to Greggs under Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation. This wasn’t optional courtesy. It was my legal right.
On 20 August at 12:52 PM, Greggs’ Data Protection team emailed to confirm they would comply “within the statutory timeframe.”
Less than one hour later, they emailed again – this time claiming that they had “no records matching the details” I had provided.
This is categorically impossible.
What They Know (and Pretend Not To)
Greggs has already been provided with — and previously responded to — multiple lawful communications from me. They’ve acknowledged the Subject Access Request. They’ve received direct emails from me. They were aware I had a Greggs Careers account that was deleted mid-application for a database role I had been shortlisted for.
Under UK GDPR, even a single email sent to their inbox constitutes personal data. It must be disclosed upon request — unless there’s a lawful reason not to.
Instead of disclosure, I was told that nothing exists.
Smoke, Meet Fire
This wasn’t just a mistake. It’s either:
- A deliberately narrow search to avoid disclosure
- Or unlawful erasure of personal data after a SAR had been submitted
Either way, it’s a legal problem — not just a PR one.
The Fire You Fed
I document everything. Emails. Timestamps. Application history. Screenshots. Proof of deletion. Correspondence with public bodies. You name it. Why? Because experience teaches you that silence isn’t just inaction — it’s strategy.
And we don’t fear legal action. We prepare for it. We expect it. And when companies hand us evidence on a silver platter, we thank them — and escalate.
What Happens Next
I’ve now issued Greggs with a formal litigation hold notice and a seven-day deadline to correct their position. If they fail to do so, I will submit a pre-action protocol letter and escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
This isn’t just about Greggs. It’s about the wider pattern of institutions who champion “inclusion” in their branding — and erase disabled people in practice.
They’re not putting out the fire.
They’re fuelling it.
Follow the case: Greggs: Subject Access Request, Deletion & Discrimination
Be First to Comment