Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent 30th April 2014 17:54 to Ben Bradshaw MP

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I consider this BBC article to be libelous of my good family name.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/198892/response/502292/attach/2/IR2014009%20internal%20review.pdf

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:14 PM

Subject: GIA/863/2014 Dransfield V ICO and the Olympic Delivery Authority

Attn The Upper Tribunal

Please be advised that I will not be present at the UT hearing on 2nd June. The reason being is because the ICO and the ODD do not intend to be present, hence, please consider this matter on the papers alone. It is pointless and a complete waste of time me being at the hearing in the absence of the ICO and the ODD.

I hold no confidence whatsoever the UT will allow me a fair and just hearing. Hence, I do not intend to spend money on travel expenses to get shafted again by the UT.

Please advise me the key issues, skeleton argument etc from the ICO and the 2nd respondents and a full explanation why the UT have not allowed a full oral hearing.

In the interest of the public purse would it be worthwhile me making my application for leave to appeal the UT Decision 8 weeks before it is made , because it will surely be a vexatious decision?

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 7:22 AM

Subject: Re: FOIA complaints about the ICO (Ref FS50532725)[Ref. FS50532725]

ICO Governance Officer

Dear Gemma

I find your response somewhat disingenuous because you specifically asked me if I wish you to consider any other complaints and as you are aware, I have highlighted a number of complaints against the ICO which I wish you to consider. Therefore, why are you rowing back from your own original requests for me to provide further complaints by now claiming you are conducting inquiries into the 15 vexatious decisions ONLY, which were made on the same day by your Steven Dickinson.

Furthermore, you have not responded to my specific questions of your line manager?

I repeat that question, who is your line manager please, is it Steven Dickinson?

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 10 April 2014 14:35:33 BST
To: <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FOIA complaints about the ICO (Ref FS50532725)[Ref. FS50532725]

10th April 2014

Case Reference Number FS50532725

Dear Mr Dransfield,

I write to confirm that I have received your recent emails. I am only able to investigate whether or not section 14 FOIA was applied correctly to the 15 FOIA requests you made to the ICO between 30 December 2013 and 21 January 2014. I am unable to investigate anything other than this. As soon as my investigation is complete in relation to this, a Decision Notice will be issued.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Garvey
Senior Case Officer
01625 545539

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: FOI request 89837

First Tier Tribunal

I am not satisfied with your response to my FOIA request, hence please conduct a review. I also very concerned at your statement that the Judiciary is outside the remit of the FOIA 2000 in your following statement quote”The judiciary, though, is not a public authority and so the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to it.”

My response to that Sir, is absolute hogwash, the Judiciary does come under the FOIA but ais governed by Section 32 exemptions, and my FOIA request for Judge Warren’s hand-written notes is perfectly acceptable under protection of FOIA 2000.

Your quotation above implies the Judiciary is outside the FOIA remit period, which is factually incorrect. The Ministry of Justice holds vicarious liability for the FTT/UT Judges and the MoJ is a public authority. Hence, your statement above is either hogwash at worst and at best an attempt to obstruct justice.

Therefore my FOIA requests for Judge Warren’s hand-written note and ditto for his panel are legitimate FOIA requests.

Once again, I find myself receiving mis and disinformation from the FTT.

For your information, action and files.

Yours sincerely

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

Subject: ICO response to request[Ref. IRQ0532897]
PROTECT
31 March 2014Case Reference Number IRQ0532897
Dear Mr Dransfield,

I am writing in reply to your 28 February request for:

“1. An approved copy of your Lightning Risk Assessment for your HQ Premises.
2. Lightning Protection Test Certificates for the last 5 years for the same.”
We have considered your request and while this may be thought to be a request for environmental information, possibly in part 1), it is not immediately clear that the information described is actually environmental information, and the information you are seeking in particular at part 2) is not environmental information. We are therefore dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), but to the extent that it may be considered to be a request for environmental information, the relevant parts of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) will be applied.

Your request is refused as vexatious, under the provisions of section 14(1) of FOIA. For the avoidance of doubt, any environmental information is withheld under the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, that the request is manifestly unreasonable and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Our reasons, follow.
First, your request follows closely after a series of numerous requests submitted in quick succession. We have previously explained to you that this creates considerable difficulties and disruption for the ICO, and yet you have persisted in submitting numerous requests, even after we have explained both the burden which this action creates and the consequence, which is that the requests are refused as vexatious. We therefore consider that the present request cannot be considered in isolation, and must instead be seen to form part of a pattern of behaviour which has been followed even after we have explained to you why such a pattern is not appropriate or acceptable to the ICO.

Secondly, we consider that your request, and the accompanying remarks (“this is a BRAND NEW request, straightforward and benign, hence, any fair minded person would not understand how you would be able to rely on section 14/1 of the FOIA 2000 or even section 12(4) (b) of the EIRA 2004.”), strongly suggests that this is not primarily an attempt to obtain information, but it appears to us instead to be an attempt to find a topic which the ICO would not or cannot refuse as vexatious. Alternatively, it appears to us to be an attempt to obtain evidence for your hypothesis that the ICO will automatically refuse any request from you as vexatious. We consider that the timing of your request is also relevant in this regard. As we have previously indicated, we consider this to be itself a vexatious action.

Thirdly, we are aware of numerous requests on this subject, to a variety of public authorities. We consider that this might suggest an obsessive interest in this topic and therefore that your request is intended also to find an alternative way to disrupt the activities of the ICO by engaging with it on a subject with which you seem to have an unreasonable preoccupation. We consider it highly likely that any response we could provide to this request would result in further unwelcome and unwarranted correspondence and engagement with the ICO, and that you would be unlikely to undertake that correspondence in a measured, reasonable and respectful manner.

The general tenor of your wider correspondence and requests is often confrontational, insulting and frequently causes annoyance to the ICO staff receiving it. Again, we have previously drawn your attention to the ICO’s Managing Customer Contacts Procedure:

http://ico.org.uk/about_us/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Notices/managing-customer-contacts.ashx

A failure to abide by the standards of behaviour expected by this procedure is likely to result in the ICO adopting measures within the procedure, for the management of your contact with the ICO. It has already been explained to you that we will take into account your use of derogatory language, and our request to you to refrain from using it, when considering any future requests to our office. While the present request may not be couched in overtly derogatory or insulting terms, as previously mentioned your requests cannot be taken in isolation and should be viewed within the context of your overall dealings with the ICO. It is our view that recent correspondence received by the ICO from you shows no apparent attempt to moderate your language or tone.

To the extent that your request is for environmental information, we consider the request to be manifestly unreasonable for the reasons explained above, and that the public interest in dealing with a manifestly unreasonable request is inherently low. We further consider that the public interest in the ICO not having to expend its limited resources engaging with you on this matter, and in not exposing its staff to the abusive, offensive or insulting correspondence associated with your requests, outweighs any public interest in disclosure of the information.

We wish to make clear that, under the provisions of section 17(6) of FOIA, the ICO is not obliged to respond to a request if:
it considers that the request is vexatious;
the requester has previously received a refusal notice for a previous vexatious request:
and it would be unreasonable to expect it to issue another one.

You have now received several refusal notices explaining our reasons why your requests have been refused as vexatious. We consider that you are aware of the ICO’s reasons for refusing your requests, and it does not seem that you have adapted the pattern of correspondence in any way. We therefore consider that providing additional notices will not be of benefit to you, or to the ICO and therefore we have reached the view that it will not be reasonable to issue them. If you continue to submit requests, we will consider them on their own merits, but if we conclude that the request is vexatious you will not receive any acknowledgement or response. For the avoidance of doubt, I will summarise briefly the main reasons why your requests continue to be considered vexatious. Our reasons include, but are not limited to:
The volume and frequency of requests, and the associated burden of dealing with them;
The language and tone of the requests, associated correspondence or remarks, and its effect on the staff receiving them;
The purpose (or lack of) of your requests – each request is considered on its own merits but where the ICO considers that the request is not intended genuinely to obtain information, but is instead a further attempt to force engagement with the ICO, this is considered to be vexatious;
and Attempts to revisit matters which the ICO has previously dealt with and considers closed.

If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled you should write to the Information Governance Department at the address below or e-mail informationgovernance@ico.org.uk

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40 working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint handler under the legislation. To make such an application, please write to the Customer Contact Team, at the address below or visit the ‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

Yours sincerely

Steven Dickinson Lead Information Governance Officer

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZomTe6_Zk

Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Subject: COMPLETE MELTDOWN OF THE INFORMATIONS COMMISSIONERS OFFICE.

Ministry of Justice,
102 Petty France,
London,

SW1H 9AJ

Attn The Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP. Secretary of State for Justice

Dear Sir

I write to you in your capacity of Secretary of for State for Justice to inform you of a complete MELTDOWN of the Information Commissioner’s Office and call for a Public Inquiry into the conduct of the Information Commissioner, Mr Christopher Graham, and the manner in which section 14(1) Vexatious exemption decisions are handed down as a “get-out-of -jail” trump card by rogue public authorities on a whim.

In particular, I refer to the Upper Tribunal decision GIA/3037/2011 dated 28th Jan 2013, Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council. That case is still before the Court of Appeal under C3/2013/1855.

By virtue of the fact the GIA/3037/2011 is still navigating its way through the Court of Appeal process, it cannot be deemed as a Statutory Court Authority/Precedence, and any use of the GIA/3037/2011 is a breach of good law and Contempt of Court.

The GIA/3037/2011 has now been used unlawfully nearly 200 times by various public authorities, some of which should know better and certainly be aware of Sub-Judice, Stare Decisis, Due Process and common sense.

Rogue Public Authorities including but not limited to:-

1.Crown Prosecution Service , CPS

2.Home Office

3.Ministry of Justice.

4.Wilshire Police Authority.

5.Devon County Council

6.Carmarthen County Council

7.Stockport Borough Council

8.Cheshire County Council.

8.Hartlepool County Council.

9.Walberswick Parish Council

10 Wirral County Council.

11.Dorset County Council

12.Information Commissioner’s Office

It is particularly distressing that the ICO are one of the main culprits to use the vexatious trump card on a whim and their 37 page vexatious guidelines (May2013version1) is also based on my case GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield Case.

The ICO has shown flagrant disregard for their Mission Statement, which is to ” uphold the FOIA 2000″.

On the contrary, the ICO has knowingly and wilfully circumvented section 77 of the FOIA 2000 for self gain by their flagrant abuse of section 14(1) Vexatious Exemptions..

It beggars belief the ICO would attempt to use the Vexatious Exemption under section 14(1) as their first response exemption (weapon).

There is prima facie evidence of a greater conspiracy between the ICO/FTT/UT and rogue PAs nationwide to use my rogue GIA/3037/2011 as a Court Precedence.

I fully appreciate the gravity of my allegations which can be verified by a simple ocular inspection of the ICO decisions records from Jan 2013 to 20th Mar 2014.

Recommendations/Suggestion.

Call for the immediate suspension of the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham and the Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley OBE.

Establish exactly how many times GIA/3037/2011 has been used as a Court Authority since Feb 2013 to 20th Mar 2014. This would take a legal graduate about 1/2 day maximum; a simple search in the ICO Website decision search engine would reveal the rogue decisions.

What is particularly distressing is how many times the GIA/3037/2011 has been used by other rogue PAs which have not reached the ICO appeal system. This could be dozens or hundreds.

For your information, there is a FTT Hearing in London next Mon 24th Mar in which the ICO and the Devon County Council are solely reliant upon this rogue GIA/3037/2011 and I invite you to attend this hearing to see your judiciary at work first hand. The very least you can do is to send one of your legal observers to this hearing. This FTT hearing next Mon, at best, is a kangaroo court and at worst, a tool to assist fraud and perversion of Justice. I suggest the latter. The FTT hearing case ref is EA/2010/0152, which is under its 6th retriak and has been a live case since Feb 2008. God only knows the true cost to the public purse for this case.

I would be most grateful if you would forward this letter to the Lord Chief Justice and the Parliamentary Justice Select Committee.

With thanks

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield