Subject access, under control.
A subject access request is a legal obligation with a one-month clock, a mixed pile of sources and a set of judgements about other people's data. Redactics gives the team a single, review-ready view of what the organisation holds about the requester, and records every decision along the way.
What your team is asked
- Have we searched every source we should have?
- Which of the 1,400 relevant items actually need a human decision?
- Does this paragraph contain another person's data, and can we disclose it?
- If the requester complains to the ICO, can we show what we did and why?
How the case runs
- 1
Scope and collect
Record the request, agree scope and bring in mailbox exports, drive folders and case system extracts. The collection log records what was searched.
- 2
Extract and resolve
Documents, scans and handwriting become searchable. Mentions are linked into person records: the requester, and each third party.
- 3
Review by person
Reviewers work through findings grouped by person and category, deciding the items that need judgement and recording reasons.
- 4
Disclose with the record
The package is generated from approved decisions, with an index, a redaction schedule and the audit trail behind it.
- Cases
- /SAR-2026-0417
- /Overview
SAR-2026-0417/Overview
SAR-2026-0417
Subject access request: employment records
- Items collected
- 8,868
- People resolved
- 23
- Findings
- 1,428
- Need judgement
- 48
Needs attention
48 items| Item | Person | Category | Status | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RE: Return to work meetingEmail + PDF attachment | Daniel Okafor | Health | Approved | 94% |
| Grievance meeting notesEmail | Priya Shah | Third-party opinion | Suggested redaction | 88% |
| Supplier payments FY21.xlsxSpreadsheet | D. Okafor (invoices) | Identity match | Awaiting judgement | 54% |
| Emergency contact formScan | Aisha Okafor | Contact details | Third-party check | 89% |
| Payroll adjustments Q3.xlsxSpreadsheet | Daniel Okafor | Financial | Approved | 97% |
Grievance meeting notes
88%Priya Shah, third-party opinion
Suggested redactionSupplier payments FY21.xlsx
54%D. Okafor (invoices), identity match
Awaiting judgementEmergency contact form
89%Aisha Okafor, contact details
Third-party check
What changes
- Searching and sorting done for you
- Skilled staff spend their time on the 48 items that need judgement, not the 8,000 that do not.
- Third-party decisions with reasons
- Every redaction has a recorded reason mapped to your policy and to DPA 2018 Schedule 2.
- The one-month clock, visible
- Due dates, extensions and progress are on every screen. Deadline risk is reported before it becomes a breach.
What a pilot looks like
- Choose one representative SAR, typically 2,000 to 20,000 items
- Transfer the material securely into your own Redactics tenant
- Review the resolved people, findings and evidence with our team alongside yours
- Receive a pilot report: documents analysed, people resolved, findings, third-party items, judgements required and estimated manual review avoided
Relevant controls
- UK or EU Azure processing
- Role-based access and case-level permissions
- Append-only audit trail
- Retention and deletion you control
Other solutions
- Data breach responseKnow whose data was involved and what it contained, with evidence, inside the notification window.
- HealthcareHigh-volume, high-sensitivity requests across clinical, HR and corporate records, with clinician judgement preserved.
- Local governmentSocial care, housing and education files that run to thousands of pages, with families, professionals and third parties throughout.
- Regulated organisationsComplaint-driven and litigation-adjacent requests where privilege, third-party data and the audit trail all matter.
- Managed SAR serviceRedactics technology and a review team, handling the workload with you and within your governance.
Make SARs manageable.
Try Redactics yourself or talk to us about your current process.