IT Specialist Challenges MI6 Security Clearance Denial in Legal Filing
A senior IT professional has filed a legal complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) after being denied MI6 security clearance for a role within the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). The individual, identified only as RP for confidentiality, claims the government’s refusal to grant Developed Vetting (DV) clearance was procedurally flawed, lacked transparency, and potentially breached their rights under both UK and international law.
RP, who identifies as LGBT+, had previously worked in the intelligence sector and was granted DV clearance in 2009 without incident. In June 2024, RP was offered a senior Grade 6 technology role at MI6 headquarters in London, but the job was contingent on receiving DV clearance again. According to the legal claim, the vetting process quickly became mired in delays and procedural irregularities that have now prompted RP to seek redress through the tribunal.
In the complaint, RP claims that UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body responsible for conducting background checks for sensitive government roles, delayed the DV interview by over three months, despite RP’s repeated follow-ups. Once the interview took place, RP said vetting officers failed to contact any of the character referees RP had provided, who included current and former senior civil servants, ex-police colleagues, and other high-level professionals. This omission, RP argues, undermines the thoroughness and fairness of the vetting process.
Adding to RP’s concerns, several suspicious hacking attempts on personal digital accounts occurred shortly after RP disclosed private information to the vetting team. Cyberattacks targeted RP’s personal email and social media profiles, originating from IP addresses in Russia, Vietnam, and the United States. An alias email address that RP used to communicate with family during the COVID-19 lockdown was reportedly compromised. RP has since raised concerns that these attacks may be linked to the vetting process or the disclosure of sensitive personal data to third parties, although there is no official confirmation of a connection.
In October 2024, RP received a formal notice of refusal of DV clearance from an entity described in the letter as “FCO Services.” The letter offered no detailed explanation, citing national security grounds, and did not inform RP of any appeal process. The use of the outdated “FCO Services” branding—superseded in 2020 when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office merged into the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)—also raised questions about the accuracy and professionalism of the vetting process.
RP has expressed concern that the lack of transparency and due process could damage future employment prospects. With the tribunal complaint, RP is asking for the DV refusal to be overturned, compensation for significant financial losses including the forced sale of a long-held home in preparation for the new MI6 role, and assurances that the vetting process will be reviewed for fairness and procedural integrity.
The case comes amid ongoing scrutiny of UKSV’s operations. In a 2023 report, the National Audit Office (NAO) found serious backlogs and systemic issues within the vetting agency. Only 7% of DV applications were completed within the target timeframe, and the delays were largely blamed on outdated IT infrastructure and inefficient processes. A government spokesperson has since claimed that major improvements have been implemented, with 97% of DV applications being processed within agreed timelines by early 2025. However, RP’s experience suggests that challenges remain.
Legal experts believe the case could have broader implications for how national security vetting is conducted in the UK. The IPT, which handles complaints involving alleged misuse of investigative powers by the intelligence services, will now assess whether RP’s rights were violated during the clearance process. A decision in RP’s favor could pressure the government to make the DV system more transparent, consistent, and accountable.
As of now, neither MI6 nor the Cabinet Office has publicly commented on the case.
