Alan Dransfield's Blog

This document can be more clearly read via this link:
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/alan-dransfield.html

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=alan+dransfield+pilgrim+father+you+tube&view=detail&mid=50688970FCAB3602029350688970FCAB36020293&FORM=VIRE

Email sent – Mon 03/09/2018 10:54

Information Commissioners Office

Dear Madam

Under protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with
copies of the following

1. All correspondence between the ICO and David Lidington ref the recent changes to sect 45 of FOIA

2. Records of all phone calls, meetings etc
and personal notes from Ms Denham to the Queen on same subject.

3. Copies of all correspondence from your office pertaining
to sect 45 changes and responses from the Cabinet Office. This request is
neither vexatious, wide or unfocused.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=678184955873290&id=100010453752400&src=email_notif

Email sent – 23/08/2018 18:53

Attn The President of the Upper Tribunal Mr Justice
Charles

Dear Sir

In light of last nights documentary on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ref the Carillion Collapse (CC), I
ask the UT President to revisit his earlier decision that Judge Wikely had
acted within the law ref Case
GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO. I reiterate Judge Wikely was complicit with the
ICO to pervert the course of justice ref the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.

In mid 2016 my appeal to the UT relating to 6 PFI schools
in Exeter was rejected based on the Court of Appeal C3/1855/2015. Moreover and
more importantly the Dispatches programme supports my claims the 6 PFI school in
Exeter were/are substandard and unsafe. It also supports my allegation that you
have acted unlawfully by not taking my allegation against Judge Wikely
seriously. In essence, you have been complicit with Judge Wikely and the ICO to
cover up serious crimes and to circumvent the ICO.

Suggestion

Revisit your decision
ref my complaints against Judge Wikely ref GIA/3037/2011.
Revist the UT
decision to dismiss my appeal to the UT.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 15 August 2018 at 10:09:17 BST
To: <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>

Subject: Complaint to ICO re: Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea[Ref. FS50772688]

15th August 2018

Case Reference Number FS50772688

Dear Mr Dransfield

I am writing with regard to your email of 1 August 2018 in which you explain
that you wish bring a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of a freedom of
information request.

As you will re-call, we wrote to you earlier this year on 15 March 2018 and
explained that we were not prepared to accept any further complaints from you
under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A copy of our
letter is attached.

We do not consider the circumstances to have changed since that letter was
issued. Therefore, we consider your application to the ICO in relation to
the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of this request to also
be frivolous and/or vexatious for the purposes of section 50(2)(c) of FOIA. We
will therefore not be accepting this complaint.

Yours sincerely

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Email sent – Thu 26/07/2018 20:17

Attn
Karla Bailey Lead Case Officer

Dear
Madam

I
now wish to elevate my complaint to the next level of the ICO complaints
procedure, as I fervently believe the ICO have breached my Information rights by
refusing my Subject Access Request ( SAR) on grounds my request is Manifestly
Unreasonable.

No
person applying a right and proper mind could refuse my SAR under such
exemptions.

As
you are aware, the ICO has consistently refused my FOI requests under section
14/1 vexatious exemption and now for the first time my SAR has been refused. It is consistently obvious to me that ICO senior managers including Elizabeth Denham
are acting in concert to harass me. At best, your refusal decision is a
Wednesbury Principled decision, and at worst, a decision to pervert the course
of justice. I suggest the latter.

In
the event I have not received a response to this letter within 14 days, I
intend to pursue a private prosecution commencing at Chester Magistrate
Court under protection of The Fraud Act 2006 and the Data Act 98

With
thanks

Alan
M Dransfield

Email sent – Sat 12/05/2018 20:39

Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham

Dear Madam

As you are aware, the ICO have instructed court bailiffs to
recover nearly £4000 legal costs in connection with The Court of Appeal Case
C3/1855/ 15th May, Dransfield v ICO.

Are you not aware that a public authority cannot use taxpayers money to seek legal redress?

Therefore, please advise your bailiffs to cease and
desist harassing me for such legal costs.

I will take this opportunity in submitting a FOIA request to
the ICO for all cases in which the ICO have pursued legal costs against any
FOIA complainant/requester since Jan 2013.

with thanks

Yours sincerelylan Dransfield