Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent Tuesday, October 01, 2013 6:55 AM to Richard Bailey, ICO Solicitor

Dear Mr Bailey

I would be grateful if you would do a follow up for me to my FOIA request to the ICO for copies of the audio tape and judge’s notes for the Ainslie and Craven cases. I am sure you are aware my FOIA request is well overdue the allotted 20 days now.

As not to disturb you unnecessarily with such matters, could you kindly provide me with a contact name and email for the ICO / FOIA Dept.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan Dransfield

Email sent to Carol Scott, Case Officer, ICO
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:15 PM

Dear Carol

Complaint about the House of Lords[Ref. FS50507004]

I maintain that the House of Lords does hold the sought after data i.e. Lightning Risk Assessment because they have a legal requirement to do so.

The HOL claim they are legally compliant to the BS/EN 62305/2008, hence they do hold or should hold the sought after data

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan Dransfield

Email sent Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:56 PM

Attn of Rt Hon Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education

Dear Mr Gove

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO FRAUD AND THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS RELATED TO THE 6 PFI SCHOOLS IN EXETER

There is prima facie evidence to support my claims of the subject title. In particular,I refer to the Health and Safety Files (HSF) and the Operation Maintenance Manuals (OMM) for the 6 PFI schools in Exeter.

I have had recent access to these 6 HSF/OMM and these documents confirm fraud and theft of public funds from the £400 million central funded project on the 6 PFI schools in Exeter.

The HSF/OMM also confirms the school buildings have not been designed, constructed and operated in accordance with Construction Design Management (CDM) Laws and Building Regulations. These HSF/ OMM also confirms the welfare and H&S of students and staff have been wilfully comprimised.

The 64K$ dollar question now is: Is such fraud, irregularities and anomalies isolated to Devon? I fervently do not believe it is because such skulduggery is a nationwide problem on PFI Projects, be it schools, hospitals, police stations etc.

I look forward to hearing your action plan to route out such flagrant fraud and safeguard our children in these Exeter PFI boondogle schools. There needs to be a 100% improvement in the current transparency, accountability and security (TAS) of central funded projects and this can only be achieved if PFI projects are subjected to TAS and early publication of the HSE and OMM must be a prerequsite.

Currently, there is NO TAS and no security ringfence in place on PFI projects. Moreover and more importantly TAS is not seen to be working at the Department of Education and your Office in particular.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent Friday, September 27, 2013 7:31 PM to casework@ico.org.uk
Subject: Re: PROTECT: Response from ICO [Ref. IRQ0514032]

Dear Sir

Firstly, I must apologise for an early error. I was referring to the Met Police, not the Met Office.

I do not accept you can withhold the meeting notes from the ICO raid on the Consultants Association.

I do not accept your decision and I request a review please.

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent Monday, September 30, 2013 2:30 PM

Attn the Information Commissioner

Dear Sir

Please ensure this letter is passed to the Information Commissioner in person. I would also be grateful if you would pass this onto the DCC also, because similar libel and defamation charges will be brought against the DCC.

I put you on notice that I am seeking legal advice because I believe the ICO has libelled me in their 37 page Vexatious Guidelines, and in particular the following statement:-

“A manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.”

The publication of the Operation Maintenance Manual (OMM) for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge which was available (not to me) at the time of the UT Case Hearing does, in my view, support my allegation that Judge Wikeley has libelled me via his Court Authority in GIA/3037/2011 and in particular his above comments and ditto for the ICO in their recent publication of their 37 Page Vexatious Guidelines Document.

We now know the above comments from Judge Wikeley could not be further from the truth, and we also know that no person applying a right and proper mind could have made such a statement which, incidentally, does not appear in Judge Wikeley’s Case Notes from the hearing!

…… and the Information Commissioner himself knew or should have known that the bold statement above was a lie.

Conversely, I could counter-claim the exact same statement made by Judge Wikeley ref his decision and the ICO Guidlines Document. Moreover and more importantly, I would add that Judge Wikeley has used a perverse mindset to make the bold statement above and the ICO has also applied a perverse mindset when using the GIA/3037/2011 Court Authority in their Guidance Guidelines published approx 2 weeks ago…..

……Not only have the ICO disseminated further libel in their Publication of the 37 page Vexatious Guidelines, they have defamed my good name by malicious and wilfull statements such as above in bold font.

I rely on the afforementioned OMM for the Rugby Bridge document, which was recently published by the DCC, to support my libel and defamation claims against the ICO and HM Courts.

In the interest of Justice, I suggest/recommend you do the following:-

1. An immediate withdrawal and an apology to HM Courts for misleading … HM Courts.

2. An immediate withdrawal from your website of the 37 page document of Vexatious Guidelines

3. An immediate public apology to be made to me in the paper of my choice and the contents of the apology to be agreed with me before publication.

4. An immediate financial compensation package to be offered to me for the libel and defamation charges against me.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan Dransfield

Email sent Monday, September 30, 2013 9:48 AM
To Richard Bailey, ICO Solicitor

Dear Mr Bailey

Please pass this onto the ICO. FOIA team.

Please provide me with specific details how many times the ICO have issued vexatious decisions which have been reliant upon GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield vICO.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:35 AM to Richard Bailey, ICO

Dear Mr Bailey

As you are aware, I have made formal complaints against your conduct to your immediate line manager, Mr Mark Thorogood, and he has failed to take such matters seriously.

Please provide me with a contact name and email address for the appropriate governance officer within the FOIA organisation, where I can submit my formal complaints regard you and Mr Thorogood and in particular the handling and failures of my two main FOIA requests i.e.,GIA/3037/2011 and EA/2010/0152.

I have particular concerns regard the ICO’s usage of my GIA case since January this year in support of court authority of vexatious decisions handed down by the ICO. The ICO knew that my GIA /3037/2011 case is/was subject to a Court of Appeal and therefore cannot be used as a Court Authority/ Precedence until entered into the statute book.

My complaint now includes legal failings against the ICO legal advisors and you in particular because you are a solicitor .

Any first year solicitor graduate should/ must be aware of sub judice ruling for which you and the ICO have shown scant regard.

I am also very concerned at the libellous comments against me currently in the public domain in the ICO Vexatious 37 page guidance notes dated May 2013.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield