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.

Why is the Information Commissioner complicit in covering this up?

Vexatious Posted on Tue, January 19, 2016 03:04:12

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 15 January 2016 04:31
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben; John BERCOW
Subject: EA/2014/0152 Dransfield v ICO

Information Commissioner’s Office

Attn Richard Bailey

Dear Sir

Please add this press release to my final bundle for the Upper Tribunal hearing (To Be Confirmed). May I also suggest/recommend the Information Commissioner’s Office does some research into the fire hazard dangers at schools & hospitals nationwidewhich have been
built by Balfour Beatty? This press release is most relevant to my forthcoming
UT hearing because the Devon County Council are on record that the 6 Private Finance Initiative schools
in Exeter are flagships. That’s what they said about the Titanic!

May I also suggest/recommend that the ICO/UT requests a copy of
the As Built Health and Safety File (ABHSF) for the ISCA College to be
read by the UT panel in closed session? I appreciate the UT would need a construction expert to assist them with the ABHSF but it behoves the UT
to inspect the ABHSF, if indeed the document exists.

May I take this opportunity in asking why the First Tier Tribunal have leap-frogged my FOIA Case EA/2015/0274? Are you comfortably with this
irregularity? I am certainly not.

For your information,action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

———————————–

“Knowsley Council is investigating alleged problems with fire
protection at eight PFI schools built by Balfour Beatty under the Building Schools
for the Future programme.

According to a report in the Independent on Sunday,
a kitchen fire at one school, Knowsley Park, led to a review of fire-proofing
at all eight schools, which found problems at all of them.

In the fire, smoke spread into an adjoining stairwell. If the
blaze had been more serious, the IoS says, the smoke could have affected
children evacuating the building.

Knowsley Council has said that urgent work is now being carried
out to rectify the fireproofing issues around the eight schools, including
problems with mechanical dampers.

In a statement it said: “As a result of the issues at Knowsley
Park, surveys were commissioned to cover all of the PFI school estate, which
has found similar issues. A detailed programme of work has been agreed with
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service to resolve the issues and this is being
expediently implemented.”

In August last year, as part of its divestment programme,
Balfour Beatty sold Transform Schools, the PFI vehicle it set up to build the
Knowsley schools, to investment firm Dalmore for £42m.

Knowsley council found problems at all eight of its PFI schools, including Halewood Academy

A spokesman for Dalmore said: “Transform Schools (Knowsley) is aware of issues with the integrity of the passive fire safety provisions across the PFI estate having carried out surveys of all facilities. The company is now working with our supply chain to rectify all issues. All costs associated with the works will be borne by the private sector contractors. The Fire Authority and the council’s corporate health and safety team have confirmed that the schools are safe to occupy and remain open.”

In a statement, Balfour Beatty said: “Balfour Beatty is working with Transform Schools (Knowsley) to an agreed programme of works to rectify known issues with the fire safety provisions.”

Construction Manager has sought comment from both Knowsley Council and Balfour Beatty.

According to the IoS report, Knowsley Council had also been alerted to the possibility of problems at its schools after a Channel 4 news programme last year examined a variety of problems at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, also built by Balfour Beatty.

Faulty fire doors in every building type and every sector

The programme apparently uncovered a series of problems with fire dampers, alleging there were problems with maintenance, testing and access. It cited a report which contained “images of a damper sealed with tape, one propped open with a piece of metal, preventing it working in a fire, and others built into the wall so they couldn’t be accessed for testing.” Under health and safety law, fire dampers have to be tested every 12 months.

Channel 4 quotes a statement from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS trust acknowledging that when the Queen Elizabeth opened in 2010, it was made aware that Balfour Beatty “needed to improve access arrangements for BBW [Balfour Beatty Workplace] staff to maintain fire dampers”.

It added: “A programme of works was provided, which commenced in 2010 and were completed in 2011. No payment for these works has been made by the Trust.”

The programme went on to allege that technical defects were a particular issue in PFI projects, due to the nature of the contractual relationship with clients.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported last week that Carlisle’s Cumberland Infirmary, built by Amec under the PFI and opened in 2000, is also experiencing problems major problems with fire-proofing and other issues with substandard workmanship at the project.

North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust said it had uncovered “major flaws” in elements of the hospital’s construction and had “deep concerns” over materials used in the £67m hospital.

Chief operating officer Helen Ray said that problems related specifically to fire proofing materials used, which she said did not meet required standards to allow for safe evacuation or prevent fire from spreading in the building. Further work would mean some patients being moved to temporary wards to be built in the hospital grounds.

PFI firm Health Management Carlisle Limited had declined to comment to the BBC on the trust’s claims.”



Information Commissioner’s Office – well iffy

Vexatious Posted on Fri, January 15, 2016 08:16:16

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 14 January 2016 06:45
To: GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Civil Appeals – CMSC; Richard Bailey
Subject: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL REF EA/2015/0274.
DRANSFIED V ICO

First Tier Tribunal President

Dear Sir

I wish to lodge a complaint against the FTT ref their letter
to me dated 11th Jan 2016 along with an application form for appeal to the
Upper Tribunal.

Why would I need such an application form when the FTT has
not even held a hearing on this case yet?

This particular case is ref 7 FOI requests which I
made to the ICO between March and April last year for various issues, i.e credit
and debit card use by ICO officers, metadata,legal costs,travel costs by ICO
officials and costs for vexatious guidelines, inter alia.

The ICO (respondent) made their decision on the 26th Oct
last year, which was vexatious,quelle surprise. I also received the ICO
Final Bundle for this case on the 18th Dec 2015.

It now appears this case is being elevated directly to the
Upper Tribunal without a FTT hearing, which must be a first.

I cannot believe this is a simple error by the FTT;it is
part of the bully-boy tactics used by the ICO/FTT/UT, who are complicit to
ensure all Dransfield requests are vexatious.

The 64k$ question now is: Why is the case being elevated directly to the Upper Tribunal?

………I
can’t believe I have missed a FTT hearing in the last 3 weeks!

For your information,action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



Why is the Information Commissioner covering this up?

Vexatious Posted on Wed, January 13, 2016 07:15:52

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eight-pfi-schools-built-by-one-of-uks-biggest-private-contractors-have-fire-safety-issues-10303595.html

Could this be the main reason why the Devon County Council are spending thousands of pounds of
taxpayers’ money fighting Dransfield Vexatious FOIA case?

Could this be the reason why they imposed a lifetime email ban against me and
could it be the main reason why my MP Ben Bradshaw has placed lifetime ban on me on me
attending his surgery? Just a thought.

Alan Dransfield.



Does anyone know what they are doing at the Supreme Court?

Vexatious Posted on Tue, January 12, 2016 08:14:23

Email sent – 10/01/2016 07:05

UK Supreme Court

Mr Greenberg,Case Manager

Dear Sir

Subject: UKSC/2015/0173 DRANSFIELD V ICO /IRREGULARITY WITH SC DOCUMENT SEALS

Further to my earlier email ref the UK Supreme Court document seals, I have re-examined the one page Judgement Seal dated 14th Dec 2015
signed by your Registrar (illegible name) and the light blue seal has NOT been
added onto the Judgement Paper i.e., it is an integral part of the original
paper.

I have also re-examined my application forms for my Notice
of Appeal and it can be clearly seen the Supreme Court seal has been added to the
document as per your rules of procedures.

Therefore it would seem that the one page Judgement Paper dated 14/12/15 is not in line with your own Rules of Procedure dated 2009
and, in particular, rule 16.5.

(5) An order of the Court
shall be prepared and sealed by the Registrar to record any decision made under this rule.

I also note the Judgement date is the same date which my application was considered i.e., 14th Dec 2015!??

I do not accept your registrar should be sending out spider squiggle without their full identity.

Please add this to my long list of complaints ref irregularities
and anomalies with the Dransfield case.

Please also consider this as a formal request to quash the
Expenses order in para 2 of your purported Court Order, owing to the anomalies
and irregularities.

In a nutshell, the one page piece of paper you sent to me
does not constitute a COURT ORDER or a COURT JUDGEMENT/DOCUMENT. It is part of
a wider conspiracy to gag Joe Public.

For you information, the registrar name appears to be Loiuse
di Maurinho.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



Does anyone know what they are doing at the Supreme Court?

Vexatious Posted on Tue, January 12, 2016 08:14:16

Email sent –

UK Supreme Court

Mr Greenberg,Case Manager

Dear Sir

Further to my earlier email ref the UK Supreme Court document seals, I have re-examined the one page Judgement Seal dated 14th Dec 2015
signed by your Registrar (illegible name) and the light blue seal has NOT been
added onto the Judgement Paper i.e., it is an integral part of the original
paper.

I have also re-examined my application forms for my Notice
of Appeal and it can be clearly seen the Supreme Court seal has been added to the
document as per your rules of procedures.

Therefore it would seem that the one page Judgement Paper dated 14/12/15 is not in line with your own Rules of Procedure dated 2009
and, in particular, rule 16.5.

(5) An order of the Court
shall be prepared and sealed by the Registrar to record any decision made under this rule.

I also note the Judgement date is the same date which my application was considered i.e., 14th Dec 2015!??

I do not accept your registrar should be sending out spider squiggle without their full identity.

Please add this to my long list of complaints ref irregularities
and anomalies with the Dransfield case.

Please also consider this as a formal request to quash the
Expenses order in para 2 of your purported Court Order, owing to the anomalies
and irregularities.

In a nutshell, the one page piece of paper you sent to me
does not constitute a COURT ORDER or a COURT JUDGEMENT/DOCUMENT. It is part of
a wider conspiracy to gag Joe Public.

For you information, the registrar name appears to be Loiuse
di Maurinho.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



Have the Supreme Court judges got a Govt-issued rubber stamp???

Vexatious Posted on Wed, January 06, 2016 17:04:45

Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Carnwath



A very Good Day For Public Authority Fraudsters

Vexatious Posted on Sun, December 20, 2015 09:18:46

http://panopticonblog.com/2015/12/17/dransfield-supreme-court-game/



Through the Information Commission Looking Glass

Vexatious Posted on Sat, December 05, 2015 16:49:21

Upper Tribunal (Information Rights)

Urgent Attention Judge Wright

Dear Sir

At the recent Video Link Hearing, I made a request to you for
my my case to be upgraded to include the other 5 (FIVE) PFI schools.

I have made this request in writing to the Upper Tribunal before and
been instructed to make an oral request at the hearing. This letter confirms my
request to upgrade from one (1) PFI school to six (6) PFI schools.

My original request dated 28th Feb 2008 was for six PFI
schools but downgraded to the ISCA College only because the DCC informed the UT
and the Information Commissioner’s Office that they did not hold the sought after data in PDF Format.

We now know that was a deliberate lie to pervert the course of justice by the Devon County Council.

At last week’s video hearing Judge Wright denied me from
upgrading my original request because he said, “I don’t know anything
about six PFI schools.”

It is clearly held in written records that:-

1. The ICO ordered my downgrade FOIA request from 6 to 1 school.

2. The ICO and DCC are on record the sought after data is/was available in electronic format.

You also informed me you did not know which Vexatious
Guidelines the DCC and ICO were reliant upon in this case. I wish to confirm
that the DCC & ICO are reliant upon the September 2014 Vexatious guidelines which
contains 37 pages.

In essence, they are appling 2014 vexatious guidelines to my
Feb 2008 retrospectively, which you accepted.

I fervently object to Vexatious guidelines postdated my FOIA
request in Feb 2008 by SEVEN (7) years.

The only Vexatious Guidelines which can be used on the
subject title case are the original 5 (Five points) vexatious guidelines.

Please acknowledge this letter.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



« PreviousNext »