Alan Dransfield's Blog

07 April 2014 07:05
Attn the ICO Caseworkers

Dear Sirs

Polite follow up please to my FOIA request for specific information how many times the ICO have used “COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS” with former ICO staff in the last 10 years.

Please also understand that I do not wish to receive any more of your IRQ nonsense prefix. I wish my FOIA request to be treated under the FOIA 2000 and to have a FS decision noticed attached to your response.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

There is no doubt about it, I have been involved in protracted dispute with the Devon County Council about several public premises in Exeter, which I maintain are unfit for purpose and unsafe, and I have been involved and still involved with ongoing legal disputes with the DCC which is costing thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The DCC usually dismisses my FOIA requests as either, Vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA 200 or section 12(4)(B) of the EIRA.

The premises include;

1.The 6 PFI schools in Exeter. (Currently before the Upper Tribunal)

2 The DCC HQ in Topsham Road.

3.The Exeter Chiefs Rugby Stadium and Pedestrian Bridge. (Currently before the Court of Appeal.)

4. The Climbing Centre on the Quay

5.Numerous Pedestrian Bridges in and around Exeter.

6. The DCC Great Moor House in Sowton Ind Est.

7.The New Incinerator Marsh Barton

The DCC have put me under a lifetime email ban, ditto for the HealthSE and the Local Police Authority.

The DCC do not even have a Policy and Procedure for the FOIA??!!

In short, I do believe the DCC are wilfully circumventing the FOIA 2000 by obstructing my legal access to public data/information which is in breach of section 77 of the Act .

Any fair minded person would ask, WOULDN’T IT BE CHEAPER AND IN PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE DCC TO SIMPLY HAND OVER THE SOUGHT AFTER DATA.

Alan Dransfield

Monday, April 07, 2014 6:08 AM

Subject: COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ICO

Attn Gemma Garvey

Information Governance manager at the ICO

Dear Madam

Further to your ongoing investigation ref my complaints of fraud and maladministration by ICO Officials, please see the following extract from your Mr Steven Dickinson

Can you please explain the significance of theIRQ decisions as opposed to the normal ICO FS reference.

“The ICO allocates case references according to what the specific case is about. The case prefix ‘IRQ’ denotes that the case is dealing with an Information Request to the ICO (eg an FOI request, a request for environmental information under the EIR, or a subject access request under the DPA). The response to an ‘IRQ’ case is not a ‘decision’, it is simply the ICO’s response to the FOI request it has received.”

He (Mr Dickinson) now claims that his recent VEXATIOUS decisions on any IRQ prefix are NOT decisions.

I am somewhat confused but I suspect this is part of the wider conspiracy by…..senior ICO Managers to diss and mis-inform FOIA requesters.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield