Alan Dransfield's Blog

Dear Mr Bailey

You have not informed me how I am supposed to request for a
decision review 6 months for the decision is released. I admit I am not the
sharpest knife in the draw but I fail to understand how I can appeal for a
review before the ICO decision is released. Please advise how this is possible.

Of course, you are involved in the case and you have a
handle on every Dransfield FOI case, ie – He Must be crushed??!!

Your etc

Dransfield

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Richard Bailey
wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your
email.

You refer to
misconduct in the handling of the attached case. However, I have had no
involvement in the attached case. I repeat, if you wish to challenge the
Commissioner’s decision notice in the above matter, you will need to lodge an
appeal with the First-tier Tribunal.

I have nothing further
to add.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 14 November 2015 08:20
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: UKSC Registry; graham.smith@ico.org.uk; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
GeneralEnquiries; general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk; govem@parliament.uk;
Maurice Frankel; Donovan, Paula
Subject: Re: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Dear
Mr Bailey

You
assume correctly Mr Bailey and yes indeed, para 6 of your attached Final
Decision Notice dated 26th Oct 2015 does indeed make ref to a review request
but that still does not answer my question, How I am expected to
make a review request PRIOR to the Final Notice,i e 26th October 2015?

As
you can clearly see from your attached Final Decision Notice the date is 26th Oct
2015, so how the hell can I make a review request in April 2015?

I
consider this to be part of your wider conspiracy to breach the FOIA 2000 via obfuscations and willfully ambiguous tactics by your good self. On page
2 of your decision notice it clearly shows the 7 FOIA requests between 20th Mar
15 and 17th April 2015; hence you are clearly in breach of the FOIA 2000 time
constraints.

Six
of 7 requests are brand new requests and are no way connected to my
original GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO, which is currently before the Supreme
Court. I agree that the sixth request ref IRQ0577046 is remotely
connected to my original case.

It
is clearly obvious to any fair-minded person that Dransfield the person is
being treated as vexatious not his requests, and the attached final decision
notice is further tangible evidence that the ICO is attempting to gag Joe
Public and are clearly acting as a government gatekeeper.

I
now wish to elevate my complaint against your direct misconduct in the handling
of of my attached case…..

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

————————-

On
Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

I assume that you are
referring to an internal review of an initial refusal (though this is not
actually a requirement of the legislation). From reading the decision notice,
it would appear that, in response to the initial refusal you had requested an
internal review on 22 April 2015 – see para 6.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: Alan Dransfield
Sent: 12 November 2015 17:36
To: Richard Bailey
Subject: Re: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Dear
Mr Bailey

You
surprise me at your ignorance of the FOIA 2000. I must request a review before
I can appeal to the FTT or have you moved the goal posts once again.

I
do wish to challenge your decision in FS 59582996 dated 26th Oct and in
the first instance please review your decision in line with the FOIA 2000.

For
your information action and files

Yours
etc

Alan
M Dransfield
—————————————

On 12 Nov 2015, at 08:38, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your
email.

If you wish to
challenge the decision notice issued, you will need to submit an appeal to the
First-tier Information Rights Tribunal.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 12 November 2015 04:37
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: Christopher Graham; Graham Smith; BRADSHAW Ben
Subject: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Information
Commissioner

Dear
Sirs

Under
protection of the FOIA 2000, please review your attached decision
notice. I make this review request in the interest of
transparency, security and accountability of the FOIA 2000 and the ICO
Commissioner’s bad faith.

In
your decision notice, you claim my request was NOT new and you also claim
I am guilty of intransigence and unreasonable persistence, which I refute
in the strongest manner and counter claim the same irregularity by the ICO.

For
your information,action and files

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest,
promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted
and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any
information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to
cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a
postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you
want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of
privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information
Commissioner’s Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal
compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking
software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to
ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner’s Office cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should
perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.org.uk

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest,
promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-woman-admits-role-260-000-city-council/story-27756149-detail/story.html
“An energy consultant and the wife of a Plymouth building contractor have admitted taking part in a £260,000 corruption scandal at Exeter City Council.Gary Rawlings and Linda McMayon changed their pleas on the first day of what was scheduled to be their trial at Exeter Crown Court.

They will now be sentenced later this month alongside former Exeter City Council housing manager Anthony Bodgin, who has already admitted accepting huge bribes for handing out maintenance contracts.

McMayon is the wife of Plymouth builder Kevin Wingrave, who has admitted paying £262,000 to Bodgin to secure work for him or linked contractors.

Rawlings runs a consultancy in Bedfordshire and received £88,830 from Exeter City Council for work that did not exist and paid a £33,000 kickback in return.

The pleas mean that all five defendants have now admitted their part in the corruption racket which cost council tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds before it was uncovered in 2013.

The key man at the council was Anthony Bodgin, now aged 65, but formerly in charge of special housing projects and tenant liaison at the council.

Bodgin, of Melbourne Street, Tiverton, admitted a total of eight counts including theft, fraud, conspiracy and misuse of his public office almost two years ago.

Wingrave, aged 52, of Periwinkle Drive, Plymouth, has admitted five counts of conspiring with others to cause Mr Bodgin to commit misconduct in public office.

These related to bribes of £262,000 for fitting roof vents, scaffolding, surveying and other building work.

His partner McMayon, aged 58, of the same address, has now admitted two counts of transferring criminal property. These involve payments of £99,300 made from Wingrave’s MAC Surveying company to an account set up by Bodgin called AB Surveying.

Builder Harold McGirl, aged 63, of Southbourne Road, St Austell, admitted one count relating to a payment of £5,000 to Bodgin to secure a £81,000 contract.

The last defendant to plead guilty was Gary Rawlings, aged 59, of Langford, Biggleswade, who admitted fraud.

He admitted making false representations in an invoice between September 28, 2010 and January 31, 2011, that he was entitled to £88,830 from Exeter City Council for carrying out energy surveys.

Recorder Mr John Wright adjourned sentence to September 25.

In the meantime he is due to carry out a fact finding hearing to determine the roles played by Bodgin and Wingrave in the scam.

All the defendants were bailed and McMayon and Rawlings were told they will not receive immediate jail sentences.”

From: alan dransfield [mailto:alanmdransfield@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 July 2015 08:06
To: Christopher.Knight@11kbw.com
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben; <public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>;
Enquiries; general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk;
GeneralEnquiries; Richard Bailey; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
graham.smith@ico.org.uk; Hamish
Marshall; Phil Goodwin; rsims@expressandecho.co.uk;
aacpresidentpa@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
Donovan, Paula; Adminappeals; GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
John Olsson; Maurice Frankel; Ibrahim Hasan; govem@parliament.uk; Elliott Denton; FOIA
Ombudsman
Subject: CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT KBW

Christopher Knight

11KBW Solicitors

London

Dear Mr Knight

I have been meaning to write to you for sometime on the
attached article which you published some time ago and take issue with you on
several matters.

My name is Alan M Dransfield, the source of your article
dated April 2013. Your are correct to state my FOIA Case is one of the
leading cases in the history of the FOIA, a test case for both the Upper
Tribunal (UT) and the Court of Appeal. I believe my case to be more important
than Prince Charles “SPIDER LETTERS” and the Rob Evans case because
the FOIA 2000 is dependable upon my case.

By the way, I am sure you are aware, the Court of Appeal
upheld the UT Vexatious decision in May this year via their C3/2013/1855
Dransfield v ICO case decision.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) are part of a wider conspiracy to
pervert the Course of Justice, i.e. section 77 of the FOIA 2000 aided by
cross bench political parties to gag Joe Public.

Firstly, let me set the record straight 11,KBW, your
paymasters get 95% of all ICO Court Cases, which is rather suspicious don’t you
think? What happened to a fair tendering process?

The ICO and11KBW failed to recognise the major item
of jurisdictional error. The fundamental art of all court cases is
for the Counsel to identify the correct jurisdiction in which the case falls.

How is there jurisdictional error, I hear you cry? Devon
County Council were not the legal custodians of the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge
(FOIA REQUEST SUBJECT) until Jan 2013; hence the DCC/ICO/FTT/UT were all
legally bound to ensure the correct jurisdictional path was followed back in
May 2009 at the time of my original FOIA request.

Only one action could have been taken by the DCC upon
receipt of my request i.e. REFUSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF WE DO NOT OWN THE SUBJECT
TITLE AND WE DO NOT HOLD THE SUBJECT INFORMATION.

Why was such a fundamental error made, if error at all? The
DCC/ICO/UT and CoA were hell bent on gagging Joe Public and they failed to
recognise they were commencing an unlawful legal journey.

11KBW, one of the biggest law firms in the UK, were
called in to assist the ICO as they always are on all ICO Cases; hence a cosy
relationship between KBW and the ICO is obvious.

It is inconceivable that KBW would not identify the correct
jurisdiction for a legal case before the UT and later before the Court of
Appeal.

Judge Wikeley vexatious decision was based on Context and
History, but he failed his own court order for the ICO/DCC to produce 13 Ghost
documents. Without such ghost documents, his context and history theory plane
crashed on take-off. Judge Wikeley also failed the Jurisdictional error of law.

In the CoA hearing 11KBW/ICO legal argument was based on the
ICO Guidelines dated Sept 2014 which was cock-up # 2 by KBW because the ICO Key
Evidence (Guidelines) were 5 years post dated my original request May
2009.

Recently, the DCC have released the sought after data of my
FOIA request to two separate individuals i.e. the As Built Health and Safety
Files (ABHSF) for the Exeter Rugby Bridge which proves the DCC/ICO/UT/CoA and
11KBW considered Dransfield the person as Vexatious NOT as required
required by law.

The final proof that KBW are, at best, legal buffoons … is the publication of the ABHSF because this 300 page Safety
Manual for the subject title Bridge does not contain one single reference
to lightning protection……

…..my
original FOIA request was related to H&S matters of the Rugby Bridge
and Lightning Protection in p, articular; hence if my allegations were
proven to be well founded as in the ABHSF Judge Wikeley or the Court of
appeal could NOT (repeat NOT) find my request vexatious.

As a direct consequences of shannagins by 11KBW and in
particular actions/inactions by your Tom Cross and Rachael Khamm have
placed HM The Queen in mortal danger and has compromised Justice Goddard’s
Child Sex Scandal Investigations.

I don’t recall you being involved directly in this
particular case, but I would envisage you must have done some research to write
such a lengthy article on this subject matter and you didn’t identify the
jurisdictional error either. How convenient is that Mr Knight? ….

Please bring this matter to the attention of the CEO
at 11KBW because I believe it could bring the good name of 11 KBW into
disrepute.

I would also like to give you an opportunity to withdraw
your article from the internet and other legal publications because it is libelous
and factually incorrect. I shall reserve the right in seeking further legal
damages for libel by 11KBW related to this case.

I would also like you to issue a full public apology to me
and the general public for such a misleading false article.

Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations above, it
behoves the 11KBW Board of Directors to call for a full inquiry into the
conduct of several of their Solicitors/Barristers.

This letter is not intended to be scurrilous, it is factual
and a simple ocular inspection of the ABHSF for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge
will confirm my allegation are indeed well founded.

I look forward to your response

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

To:

Email sent – 30/07/15 06.36

To clerksroom@11kbw.com, Lucy.Barbet@11kbw.com

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against 3 of your
Solicitors :

1. Mr Tom Cross

2. Miss Rachael Khamm

3. Mr Christopher Wright.

There is compelling evidence on file that your Tom Cross and
Rachael Khamm have knowingly and purposely perverted the course of Justice for
several years relating to a FOIA case which has gone through the Courts
right up the Court of Appeal. I refer to the CoA ref case C3/2013/1855
Dransfield v ICO and 11KBW have provided leading Counsel on ALL occasions at
great cost to the public purse.

Both Cross and Kamm failed to identify that this case
was pursued by them even though the incorrect jurisdiction was apparent.
The jurisdiction error was because the second respondent in this Case, i.e the
Devon County Council (DCC) were not the legal owners of the FOIA subject i.e the
Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge.

The DCC did not become the legal custodians of the
FOIA subject until Jan 2013 some 5 years post my FOI request, hence not
subject to the FOIA 2000.

11KBW knew or should have known about the jurisdictional error…..
.

They also failed to recognise that my FOIA subject requests
which included serious Health & Safety issues were indeed well founded; hence, vexatious exemptions could and should not be applied.

…..

To my knowledge your Christopher Wright has had no direct
involvement in this case but he has written on the Dransfield Vexatious
Decision at some length; hence, he must have known about the jurisdictional error.

I fervently believe that 11 KBW are conniving and colluding
with the ICO to gag Joe Public via the Dransfield Case.

Actions and inactions by your Cross and Khamm hold
serious ramifications:

1. It places HM The Queen and other royal members in mortal danger
when they visit the Olympic Stadium or the House of Parliament, as both premises
have not been provisioned with adequate Lightning Protection.

2. It has compromised Lady Justice Goddard’s Child Sex
Scandal inquiry

Not withstanding the veracity of my complaints, it behoves
the 11KBW CEO to call for an immediate inquiry into Cross, Khamm and Wright.

I reserve the right to seek costs against 11KBW for the
libellous comments and damages to my good family name.

In the event my allegation are correct about the jurisdictional error, it would automatically follow that 11 KBW are responsible for the 450 plus vexatious exemptions handed down by the ICO on the Court of
Authority UKUT/2012 440/AAC a.k.a GIA/3037/2011.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield