Our New Product Offering - Data Subject Access Requests

Most organisations treat Data Subject Access Requests as a compliance chore. Someone submits a request, a team member searches through whatever systems they have access to, redacts what they can find, and sends something back before the one-month deadline. Job done.

Except it is rarely that simple. The personal data an organisation holds about a customer is almost never in one place. It is spread across CRMs, emails, call recordings, case notes, policy systems and more, often with no easy way to know what exists where. Searching for it manually is slow. Reviewing and redacting it carefully is slower. Doing that consistently, across a growing volume of requests, while handling everything else the team is responsible for, is where the process tends to break down.

Three stages, each with its own friction

The standard DSAR workflow has three parts: receive and verify, locate and review, then respond.

Locating and reviewing the data is where most of the time goes. Organisations routinely hold customer data across systems that were never designed to talk to each other. Finding everything relevant requires searching each one, and reviewing what comes back for third-party information that needs to be redacted before disclosure. That redaction step is where human error most commonly creeps in, and the consequences of missing something are significant.

The response itself then needs to be accurate, complete and issued within the deadline, with a full record of what was done and why.

How CourtCorrect handles it

The CourtCorrect platform automates the parts of this process that are most prone to delay and error. When a request comes in, it is logged and a DSAR case is automatically created and flagged in the platform with no manual triaging required. Customer data is ingested via SFTP, API, direct upload or through CocoBot, our browser extension, which lets handlers pull data from internal systems without an integration project.

Once the data is in the platform, CourtCorrect's AI interrogates it and identifies which parts are likely to need redaction, flagging personal information, third-party data and exempt content, with the reasoning set out clearly for the handler to review. The handler assesses the flags, makes any further redactions themselves, and then generates the final response letter directly from the platform.

The result is a workflow that is faster and more consistent than a manual process, without removing the human judgement that a DSAR response actually requires.

The efficiency case

Clients using CourtCorrect for DSARs typically see efficiency gains of 25 to 50 percent compared to their previous process. That is a meaningful reduction in handler time and quality of responses spent on what is, at its core, an administrative obligation.

For firms already using CourtCorrect for complaints handling, adding DSARs to the platform requires no new tooling and no additional integration work. The same case management infrastructure, the same AI capabilities, the same audit trail, applied to a different but equally demanding regulatory obligation.

DSARs are not going to get less common. The volume of requests across financial services has been rising steadily, and there is no reason to expect that to change. Building a process that scales without simply adding headcount is not a nice-to-have. For most teams, it is already overdue.