Email sent – 02 November 2013 19:37
Dear Mr White
For the avoidance of doubt you did not inform me that you had a made a decsion and you have still not notified me in the propper manner because there is no covering letter with the document. It is not the the date of the ICO decision, which is relevant to the FTT appeal – it is the date of the ICO covering letter.
Please provide me with a copy of the covering letter.
It beggars belief you still claim this decision was made in accordance with Section 14. I ref to para 3 of your decision notice in which you state: “The Council responded on the same Day.”
It is inconceivable that the Stockport Borough Council could have reached their VEXATIOUS decsion on the same day as they received my FOIA request. You claim that you stand by your decsion; you would say that Mr White, wouldn’t you?
There is nothing in your most recent letter which would cause me to withdraw my claim that you are conniving and colluding with the Stockport Borough Council to circumvent the fOIA 200 and in particular Sect 77.
Please provide me with a copy of the coverlLetter from the ICO address to me
With hanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
————————————————
1 November 2013
Case Reference Number FS50493287
Dear Mr Dransfield,
In response to your email of 30 October 2013 I enclose a copy of the decision notice relevant to this case, as you have suggested that the ICO had failed to provide you with a copy.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am firmly of the view that the decision was drafted in accordance with our guidance on section 14 and stand by its outcome. I realise that we may have different views on the way in which the matter has been concluded, but the fact remains that, in the first instance, only the Tribunal have the authority to vary a notice. Any alteration undertaken by the Commissioner would be invalid.
Should you wish to pursue the matter, then the appeal is only route through which the findings of the decision can be challenged.
Yours sincerely
Andrew White
