Blog Image

Alan Dransfield's Blog

Freedom of Information and Health and Safety

This blog is aimed at shaming those who ignore health and safety and those who abuse the Freedom of Information Act out of laziness, corruption or to cover up incompetence.

ICO to write to blacklisted workers

UK Worker Blacklisting Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 13:34:47

Sigh, vexatious again.

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 13:31:36

Dear Mr Dransfield

Thank you for your email of 12 February 2014 in which you have made a request for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Specifically in your email you asked;
“Please provide with full details of the final pension details for all senior ICO executive staff.”

We are treating your request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

The ICO already publishes some information on its website about the pension arrangements of its senior executive team. This information can be found in our Annual Reports and also in the Management Board’s Register of interests;

As this information is reasonably accessible to you from our website this information is exempt under section 21 of the FOIA.

The information on our website represents the extent of the information we intend to publish about pension arrangements for senior ICO staff. We consider that disclosure beyond this would be unfair.

However we recognise that the scope of your request for ‘full details of the final pension details for all senior ICO executive staff’ extends beyond information which is already published and we are refusing this further element your request as vexatious under the provisions of section 14(1) of FOIA.

As you will be aware we have previously explained to you our reasons why the various requests you have submitted to the ICO are refused in reliance on section 14(1). Therefore we do not intend to repeat these in any detail here. However you should understand that our reasons for refusal of this request closely follow those explained previously.

The frequency of your requests

As you will recall we explained in our letter of 29 January 2014, that:

“We consider that, collectively, receipt of this number of requests within a short period of time, is in itself highly likely to be disruptive and create a considerable amount of work for ICO staff, in addition to their regular duties. We further consider that submission of this number of requests in quick succession is indicative of an obsessive approach to the ICO’s activities, and that a reasonable person would recognise that this would be likely to cause disruption.”

Despite the above explanation of 29 January 2014, which in itself was a refusal of 15 information requests, you have continued to submit requests to the ICO. In the month since this explanation was provided to you we have received a further six information requests from you including this one. We have explained to you the difficulties your frequent requests present for the ICO.

The subject of your request

Given that the ICO already publishes some information about the pension arrangements of its executive team and this request is the latest in a stream of requests on varying topics that you have made, we consider that your request is intended primarily to disrupt the work of the ICO and to continue the harassment of those individuals in support of your personal agenda, without any reasonable justification. As we have mentioned before, rather than being a genuine attempt to obtain information it seems this could be an attempt to find either a topic for an FOI request which will not be refused as vexatious (which is quite possibly itself a vexatious act) or an attempt to gather evidence to support the view you have recently expressed, that the ICO will refuse any request regardless of subject material.

This topic is therefore also one which we consider would add to the drain on the ICO’s resources which responding to your requests would create. It is therefore likely that future similar requests will also be refused without acknowledgement or response, under the provisions of section 17(6) of FOIA.

Again, will Ben Bradshaw act? Unlikely.

Exeter Chiefs Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 12:50:04

Email sent March 16, 2014 8:46 AM
Lightning Protection Dangers at the Exeter Chief Rugby Stadium

Dear Mr Bradshaw

As you are aware, I am on record with you ref my fears and concerns for public safety at both the Rugby Stadium and the Rugby Pedestrian Bridge. In particular, I refer to the Lightning Protection Systems (LPS).

It is a proven fact the Rugby Pedestrian Bridge has been operating in a legal void for 7/8 since it was commissioned owing to the LPS failures, which are well- documented in the As Built Health and Safety Files, which you have a copy and this matter is now before the Court of Appeal.

I now turn to the LPS safety or the lack of safety related to the Exeter Chief Rugby Stadium itself.

The Rugby Stadium owners and the DCC are on record that the stadium is compliant with the Lightning Protection Regulation and they have a certificate from Redpath Buchanan claiming full compliance…..

…..I note the extension works at the Exeter Chiefs has just started and it would appear to me the new stadium works will exacerbate the current LPS dangers.

I am deeply concerned that dozens/hundreds of people could be seriously injured or killed at the Rugby Stadium and the Bridge, and I call upon my MP to write to the appropriate oversight for sports stadium safety authority to inspect the LPS on both structures, bridge and stadium.

I am more than willing to accompany you and other authorities around the stadium to discuss my fears and allegations.

I reiterate that the Stadium and the Pedestrian Bridge are non-compliant to the BS/EN 62305/2008 regulations.

No person applying a right and proper mind can say the Bridge or the Stadium is compliant to the aforementioned standards.

I look forward to your response.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Confusion at the ICO

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 12:31:29

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:19 PM

Subject: Re: Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council EA/2010/0152

Dear Mr Bailey, ICO

Thank you for that and I have the following comments: don’t sound too certain to which Court Authority the DCC rely on.

2. The GIA/3037 /2011 is NOT a binding authority as you claim. At worst , it is a rogue judgement …… and at worst it a document to pervert the course of justice.

Alan M Dransfield

On 14 Mar 2014, at 11:36,

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Further to paragraph 12 of the attached case management note, please find attached a copy of the authorities bundle index. A copy of the authorities bundle will be sent out in the post today (I apologise for the delay). You will note that I have included in the index those authorities the Tribunal has directed should be included. Having considered the parties’ skeleton arguments, I do not believe that the parties are seeking to rely upon to any other binding authorities.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey
Richard Bailey Solicitor
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
SK9 5AF.

N J Warren, First Tier Tribunal President

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 12:22:27

To: GRC at HM Courts

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:56 AM


Under the Protection of the FOIA 200 please provide me with a full bio data of Sir Nicholas Roger Warren. The reason I ask for this information is for the full clarification of the FTT President who signs himself as NJ Warren. My understanding is that NJ Warren and Sir Nicholas Roger Warren the FTT President are one and the same.

I believe this is an attempt to confuse the general public and I do not consider it is right and proper that any court authority signed by NJ Warren is acceptable. Whilst this is initially a FOI request, it doubles up as a formal complaint against NJ Warren the FTT/UT President.

In the interest of clarity and justice, I believe that both the FTT and the Upper Tribunal Judges should sign their full names and title on their decisions.

Perusal of the FTT decisions clearly show an alarming STRIKE OUT rate by NJ Warren .e.g 100 out of 160. That is an alarming strikeout rate. There is a striking similarity between the ICO vexatious decisions and NJ WARREN strike out rate which are largely requested by the ICO, which no doubt will leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

I fervently believe that all future decision by this Judge should be signed as Sir Nicholas Roger Warren. FTT/UT President.

For your information,action and files.

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Dead Cows

Lightning Protection Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 08:59:49

The effect of lightning.

Walberswick Parish Council

Vexatious Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 08:50:06

Sent March 14, 2014 6:38 AM
Subject – BREACH OF FOIA 2000 AND 2012

Dear Sirs

This letter is for the attention of the next Walberswick Parish Council (WPC) Meeting on the 7th April 2014 and in particular the Walberswick Parish Council misconduct over the past 24 months relating to FOIA requests and the management of the same.

In particular, the WPC have relied upon my Upper Tribunal Case ref GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council decision as a Court Authority on 3 different FOIA requests from Williams/Widden/Linely. The Dransfield decision was not a court authority at the time of your vexatious exemptions and more importantly it is not a Court Authority at this juncture Mar 2014.

Therefore, your reliance to apply section 14/1 vexatious exemption may well be overturned at the Court of Appeal Hearing t.b.c.

I understand that seven (7) Walberserwick Councillors resigned over this matter and you have issued apologies to the three FOIA requesters.

Please consider this letter as a twofold request.

Firstly, to be addressed at the next WPC Meeting on the 7th April 2014 ,i.e formal complaint against WPC. Secondly, as a FOIA request to provide me with copies of all FOIA requests and your responses for the past 2 years please including a copy of the WPC apology to the 3 FOIA requesters aforementioned.

WPC may well argue that they took advice from the the ICO and in particular the ICO Vexatious Guidelines version 1(undated), but I can advise WPC that I consider that document to be sub-judice and the WPC should have taken external legal advice.

There is prima facie evidence of a wider conspiracy by the ICO and nationwide public Authorities such as the WPC to pervert the course of Justice by the wilful circumvention of the FOIA 2000 and 2012.

I put you on notice that I reserve the right to cover all legal costs should it be proven that WPC have used my name in bad faith , e.g. libeled my good name.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

No accountability at the Information Commission

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, March 17, 2014 08:44:34

Email sent to Ben Bradshaw MP March 14, 2014 7:04 AM

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see my complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is self explanatory. The ICO has not even acknowledged this letter, which reflects their typically cavalier attitude towards the Rule of Law.

I now turn to my MP and request you to elevate this matter to Chris Grayling, the Minister of Justice.

It is evident to me the ICO has not only consistently failed their Mission Statement to uphold the HM Statutory FOIA 2000 & 2012, they have flagrantly abused the FOI Act 2000 in bad faith to pervert the course of justice.

In light of the recent FOIA Case decision in the Court of Appeal yesterday ref HM Prince of Wales and the ongoing phone hacking debacle, I call upon my MP to act on these allegations of bad law and bad faith by the ICO and HM Courts.

There is prima facie evidence in the public domain that the ICO has flagrantly abused section 14 (Vexatious Exemptions) nearly two hundred (200) times since Jan 2013. In particular, I refer to GIA/30337/2011 Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council. Not only have they abused their powers of office and failed their own mission statement, they have been part of a wider conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and in particular section 77 of the FOIA 2000.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Next »