All sixteen employers the ICO found likely to be rejecting jobseekers by machine have told it they've changed. It still won't name them

On 6 October we ran a piece headlined "The ICO gave employers a set date to stop turning jobseekers away by machine. It won't name them, or say if anyone checked". The Information Commissioner's Office had written to employers it judged likely to be making hiring decisions by machine, and refused to say who they were. We asked it to review that answer. The review came back on 23 October, and half of that headline no longer stands.

The regulator says it checked

The ICO says it holds records of what each employer agreed to change, and records of follow-up work to establish that the changes were made. All sixteen confirmed the changes had been made. The deadline it gave them was 15 May 2026.

It also told us more about who they are, without naming anyone. During 2025 it contacted 37 employers it thought were likely to be using automated recruitment tools, and decided 16 were making decisions about candidates by machine. Nine employ 5,000 people or more and seven employ fewer. They work in online technology and telecoms, retail and manufacturing, transport and leisure, finance and insurance, law, and general business.

The names stay withheld. The reviewer agreed with the first answer: naming firms that came forward voluntarily would make others less willing to.

So the regulator says it checked. A jobseeker still can't find out whether one of these sixteen turned them down.

The tribunals answered late

On 9 October we reported that HM Courts and Tribunals Service had missed the legal deadline on our question about interim relief. That is an urgent application a worker can make within seven days of being dismissed, in a few kinds of case such as whistleblowing. The Ministry of Justice answered on 29 October, twenty-four days late.

Applications rose from 10 in 2023/24 to 74, then 262 in 2025/26. In the latest year 90 were dealt with. Fewer than two succeeded at a hearing, and 13 ended in a settlement through Acas. In the two years before, none succeeded at a hearing.

Part of that rise is the system, not the workers. The figures come from the tribunals' newer case system, which offices joined between July 2022 and July 2024, so the early years are undercounted.

Nothing reported on the driverless trial

We asked the Department for Transport what it had been told about the Wayve self-driving trial with Uber in London since 3 August. It answered on 9 October, inside its deadline. It has received no incident reports. It holds no record of drivers taking over from the system, and no data agreement. It says reporting is for Transport for London, which licensed the service.

The Home Office said it would cost too much

We asked the Home Office three questions about the duty on delivery apps to check their couriers' right to work, which began on 1 October: how it decided when to publish the final guidance, how many businesses the duty covers, and how it will judge whether the duty works. On 27 October it refused, saying the search would cost more than the £600 limit the law sets. That is a refusal on cost, not on what the answer would say. We will split the questions and ask again.

WHY IT MATTERS HERE

If you were turned down for a job after an online test or a recorded interview, you can ask the employer whether a person reviewed your application, and ask for someone to look again.