Alan Dransfield's Blog

Sent August 3rd 2013

The Rt Hon Tom McNally
Minister of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Dear Lord McNally

I have recently found your letter to the Voice of Local Media (attached) in which you claim the FOI have sorted out the “VEXATIOUS ISSUES” in a recent FOI Case. You did not, however, give specific case details, but I can only assume you are making reference to my own case i.e., Alan M Dransfield v ICO and the Devon County Council GIA/3037/2011.

I say “assume” with confidence because I have seen actual reference you made to the House of Lords in June this year and you also go on to say the ICO New Guidance will assist transparency.

Oh, what a web we weave when we set out to deceive, Lord McNally, and as Minister for Justice I would have expected you to be conscious of the fact that live legal cases should not be discussed in public, but you have chosen to ignore that sub judice requirement, ditto for the ICO with regard to their publication of the 37 page Vexatious Guidance and the appearance on national TV by the Deputy Commissioner, Graham Smith, quoting the Dransfield Case.

I will remind you that the GIA/3037/2011 Alan M Dransfield V ICO and Devon County Council is still an active case before the Court of Appeal and in line with HM Court Procedures, I do not intend to make further comments on that case.

However, I can make comment on the ICO 37 page document and I intend to keep it short. At best, it is a tool designed to assist the passage of fraud and at worst it has been designed to assist certain rogue Government officials to pervert the course of justice and I suggest the latter.

Your own personal FOIA experience can be written on the back of a postage stamp and in particular, I refer to your FOIA attempt to Network Rail.

The FOIA is being willfuly undermined by the oversight authorities who are paid to protect it i.e., the ICO and HM Upper Tribunal Judges.

I am sure you will hear a lot more about the Dransfield v ICO and Devon County Council (DCC) in coming months.

I would strongly recommend that you call for an immediate Public Inquiry into the Dransfield v ICO FOIA case and enquiry into the conduct of the ICO and HM Judges and the Upper Tribunal President Mr Justice Charles.

I fervently believe transparency, accountability and security (TAS) MUST been seen to be working and in the event it is not seen to be working, then in all probability it aint’ working.

From my vantage point, Lord McNally, TAS is not seen to be working in your department at the ICO/FOIA Department.

with thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Lord McNally, LibDem Peer, states his commitment to transparency and the Freedom of Information Act. We shall see!

Attn CEO Mr P Norrey and Jan Shadbolt

Re: PERJURY AND MALFEASANCE BY DCC OFFICIALS

I draw you attention to prima facie evidence in the public domain which supports my allegations of the subject title.

Please see the Operations Maintenance Manual (OMM) (available at your FOI Dept) for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Pedestrian Bridge (ECRPB). This OMM clearly shows that the ECRPB has not ( repeat NOT) been provisioned with any Lightning Protection Systems(LPS) which automatically means your DCC officials have committed PERJURY to HM FOIA Courts because they are clearly on record claiming the ECRPB HAS been provisioned with the required LPS. The OMM also confirms by the absence of any LPS that my FOIA requests should NOT have been treated under section 14 (vexatious) because my allegations of LPS were well founded and factual, as indeed supported by the recent OMM.

In essence, you need to review ALL my FOIA requests which you have refused under section 14(1) and I fell you should review your FOI Policies and Procedures. I also believe you owe me a Public Apology please…….

Alan M Dransfield

Attn Upper Tribunal President

Dear Sir

As you are aware,I am on record with serious allegations regarding Judge Wikely’s conduct ref the GIA/3037/2011 and I wish to offer further evidence which supports these allegations.In particular, the most recent FOIA response from the Devon County Council and the Operation Maintenance Manual(OMM) for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge, which, as you are aware is/was an integral subject of GIA/ 3037/2011.

This is KEY evidence that the DCC/ICO/UT have lied thru their teeth for the past 4 years and in particular to the Lightning Protection of the Sandy Park Rugby Bridge.

I invite you to search thru the OMM manual using the search engine and you will NOT find ONE SINGLE entry of

1.Lightning.

2.Lightning Protection

3.Lightning Risk Assessment

4.Soil resistivity

5.Bonding

6.Grounding.

7.Earthing.

8 Equipotential grounding.

The latter being PARAMOUNT to Health and Safety of the General Public.

I fully appreciate you are not an engineer but some engineering KNOWLEDGE is required by the ICO/FTT and the UT and without the knowledge they were unable to understand this issues and argument and they were certainly unable to reach their VEXATIOUS decision

I can now say with the greatest of confidence that the Rugby Bridge has NOT been designed, constructed and operated as purported in compliance with the Lightning Protection System(LPS) regulation and the OMM clearly supports my allegations.

Please allow me to give you an analogy for the best description of the Bridges LPS, it is similar to the recent news of the Golf Ball detector being used as a Bomb Detector. ALL the oversight authorities have known or should have known that the Sandy Park Bridge has NOT been designed, constructed with the MINIMUM Lightning Protection Systems.

Moreover and more importantly, the attached OMM confirms a catolog of technical errors with the Bridge, which, has compromised Public Safety and compromised the Public Purse…

Alan Dransfield

Attn Mr Justice Charles

Upper Tribunal President

Dear Sir

Please be advised that I have received a copy of Judge Wikeley notes from the UT hearing in London on the 14th Nov 12 and in my view, these notes support my allegations of wrongdoing by Judge Wikeley.

In a letter from the Clerk to the Upper Trubunal dated 12/4/13 which, I received today along with the handwritten notes, the clerk, Kevin MacNamara, claims the administrative oversight of the defunct tape recorder was not discovered until I made a request for a copy of the tape, which just doesn’t add up because my request for the tape was made weeks AFTER Judge Wikeley Final Decision Notice of the 28th Jan.

Judge Wikeley would now have the World believe, he made his final Decision Notice (DN) based only on his handwritten notes. Quite frankly, I think that is hogwash…….

No way on God’s earth did Judge Wikeley make his 22 page DN based on his hand written notes only and this is most evident when cross referencing Judge Wikeley’s notes and his Final Decision Notice.

My hearing was part of a Triple Test Case Hearing. Hence, am I to assume that the audio recorder malfunctioned only for my hearing, or was it unavailable for all three Cases? I think you need to establish that fact!

I would suggest/recommend you obtain a copy of Judge Wikeley’s handwritten notes before you commence your investigation into my allegations of wrongdoing by Judge Wikeley.

The most important question at my hearing was: WHY DID THE ICO & DCC NOT OBEY A COURT ORDER TO PRODUCE THE 13 GHOST DOCUMENTS. I certainly asked that question and so did Judge Wikeley, but there is no reference to that in his notes. How convenient is that?

It should also be noted that in the 1st Test Case hearing Ainslie V Dorset County Council Judge Wikeley had sight of the 1/2 doz FOIA requests from Mr Ainslie. Hence, why did he not offer me the same courtesy, especially after he had issued a Court Order to the ICO&DCC to produce the Ghost Documents. Those GHOST DOCUMENTS were paramount to the context and history which the Judge relied upon.

What position is your horse and cart in at the moment Sir? Last time we corresponded, it was the cart before the horse, which I urge you to rearrange asap and to investigate the conduct of Judge Wikeley as a matter of urgency owing to the Rogue GIA/3037 /2011 decision..

I would like you to put questions to Judge Wikely:-

1. Did you issue a Court Order to the DCC & ICO to produce the 13 Ghost Documents?

2. What actions did you take, if any, when the DCC & ICO disobeyed your Court Order?

3. Did you not think it prudent of you to see these 13 Ghost Documents before making a Context & History decision?

……………..

Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations, I believe the gravity of my claims requires your office to act and to act quickly.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Attn Richard Bailey ICO Solicitor

Dear Sir

Please find the DCC response regarding Lightning Protection for the Redhayes Bridge dated 30Aug2011, and I wish to add this document to the Final Bundle for my 3rd Retrial Hearing in July. This is relevant to my case because the Redhayes Bridge was designed and built under the New Lightning Standards BS/EN 62305/2008 and come under the direct remit of the DCC.

It is also most relevant to my case, as it clearly shows a pattern of systemic failures by the DCC regarding Lightning Protection.

It beggars belief the DCC omitted a Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) and failed to install a Lightning Protection System (LPS) on this structure. This attached document is, in my view, prima facie evidence the DCC have failed their duty of care to provide adequate LPS AND LRA on a public structure..

It is also prima facie evidence the DCC have failed their legal obligation under Section 51 of he Local Government Act.

The Worse Case Scenario (WCS) on on this Bridge is it that is takes a direct hit from lightning, which destroys the foundations and causes the bridge to collapse in the rush hour of the M5 underneath.

It may sound horrific but that’s what WCS were intended for!

I am of the opinion that the DCC bridge engineers have failed their duty of care to consider lightning on the Redhayes Bridge, which is used by thousands of cyclists and pedestrians each year. Only 500 metres away the Exeter Chief Pedestrian Bridge has been provided with LPS but no LRA. Hence, it beggars belief the Redhayes Bridge was not even considered for LPS & LRA covered by the BS/EN 62305/08.

I suggest/recommend that an urgent revision of both the LPS and LRA for Redhayes Bridge is carried out as a matter of urgency. By virtue of this email, I am requesting my MP, Ben Bradshaw, to bring this matter to the attention of the HSE. I would contact them myself but, as all parties are aware, I am under a lifetime email ban from the HSE.

You are also aware this particular bridge falls into a suicide hotspot which has also not been addressed by the DCC. This Bridge is also within spitting distance of Exeter International Airport and has not been provisioned with any Aviation Warning Lights.

In short, Redhayes Bridge is a H&S timebomb and a catastrophe waiting to happen.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Exeter’s self proclaimed Freedom of Information (FOI) Campaigner had a moral victory recently when the the Information Commissioner overturned a rejection order made by the Met Office. Alan M Dransfield, 62, had submitted a FOI request for technical data to the Met Office, which the Met Office had refused under Section 12(5) of the FOI Act 2000 claiming exemption under National Security, International Relations, Defence and Health & Safety.

Dransfield was delighted with the ICO decision which had restored his faith somewhat in the FOI Justice System. He feels that the Met Office refusal under National Security etc was absurd, and he considers they were using National Security etc as an excuse to circumvent the FOI Act 2000.

The Met Office now has 30 days to provide Dransfield with the technical data he had requested or they will be reported for Contempt of Court by the ICO.

Dransfield has held concerns for public safety and the public purse because he maintains the Met Office has not been provisioned with adequate Lightning Protection Systems (LPS). Hence, he has made a FOI request directly to the Met Office. He now claims the information will prove or disprove his assertions.

Dransfield is currently awaiting to hear from the Court of Appeal on another FOI related case which involves the Sandy Park Pedestrian Bridge which he claims is also lacking adequate LPS. In January of this year the FOI Upper Tribunal confirmed Dransfield FOI request was vexatious. Full details of the Upper Tribunal are available in the public domain under GIA/3037/2011. Devon County Council had appealed against an earlier First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decsion which had found in Dransfield’s favour and ordered Devon County Council (DCC) to release the LPS data.

This case is currently awaiting application to the Court of Appeal after 4 years of FOI Hearings.

Dransfield is due to appear before the FTT again in July on a FOI Case involving the 6 Private Finance Initiative schools in which he is seeking Health & Safety data on the schools which the DCC have refused claiming Dransfield is vexatious. How can a FOI request for H&S issues be classed as vexatious; why don’t the DCC provide me with the information I am seeking? It would be far cheaper for them to provide data than undertake expensive legal redress to justify their FOI refusal under Section 14(1) vexatious.”. He claims the July hearing will be third retrial of the PFI schools case.

Information Commissioners Office (ICO)

Please find the response from the Stockport Borough Council, who have refused my FOI request under section 14(1) vexatious. I now wish to elevate this complaint to the ICO.

The full history of my FOIA request is available at the Whatdotheknow website.

Please also be mindful that I have been corresponding with the SMBC Solicitor Mr Barry Khan for the past 6/7 months and he has not suggested my requests are vexatious.

SMBC have stated they are not prepared to review their vexatious decision which, I believe, is in violation to the FOIA 2000. In actual fact, I am unable to elevate my complaint to the ICO until the SMBC have reviewed their decision, but it would appear the SMBC FOIA manager, Mr Oldfield, is somewhat cavalier.

I am also very concerned at the statement below from the SMBC:-

“providing a channel for unauthorised investigations into the legality of building constructions by members of the public”.

My understanding of the FOIA 2000 is that a request is both motive blind and applicant blind; hence, it would appear the SMBC are treating the requester as vexatious NOT the request.

I am also at a complete loss how they can claim my request for Lightning Protection Test Results is vexatious, because they sent me the test results yesterday! It would appear to me that the left hand of SMBC don’t know what the right hand is doing.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield