Re: Formal Follow-up: Uncollected Recorded Letter LE832463616GB (Operation Dunham)
| Martin Newboldย | 6:59โฏAM (5 minutes ago) | ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
to Subject![]() | |||
Subject: Identity Verification Already Completed โ Request for Complaint Reference Number
Dear Cabinet Office Subject Access Request Team,
I have already informed you that I have a verified LinkedIn account, which uses mandated ID software (Persona) tied to my passport and driving licence. The verification images are professional, paid-for and clearly identifiable, taken by photographer JJ Waller.
Given that:
- The identity documents in question areย government-issued, and
- Your request appears to be for theย same documents already verifiedย through a secure platform using government-grade software,
I must ask: why are you requesting ID again? This raises concerns over whether you are collecting ID data for purposes beyond verification, particularly when the government has already issued the documentation and approved software (like Persona) confirms my identity.
If you are unable or unwilling to accept this method of verification, please explain why Persona is not accepted by the Cabinet Office, despite being a government-trusted system for ID verification.
Secondly, I request the reference number for my complaint, which I submitted using the official Cabinet Office complaints form. It is disingenuous to suggest you are unclear on the nature of my submission, when I have clearly identified it as a complaint, not a standard FOI or SAR.
Please stop deflecting and provide:
- Confirmation that you have accepted the complaint.
- The complaint reference number.
- Confirmation that you understand the difference between a complaint and a routine information request.
I await your response.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Newbold



Leave a comment