Alan Dransfield's Blog

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

Lord Chief Chancellor. Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP

Dear Sir

I write to you in your official capacity of Lord Chief Justice requesting you to investigate the conduct of two serving Judges, i.e Judge Wikeley from the Upper Tribunal and Justice Charles the Upper Tribunal President.

My complaint against the latter is based on the fact he has failed to take my allegations of misconduct by Judge Wikely seriously. My complaint against Judge Wikeley is he has wilfully and knowingly perverted the course of justice by making decision GIA/3037/2011. This case is currently before the Royal Courts of Justice Appeal Court. The full case title is GIA/3037/2011 Alan M Dransfield V ICO & Devon County Council.

I fully understand that your office remit will not allow you to interfere with individual cases, but I ask you to consider making an exception to the rule on this case because GIA/3037/2011 has been entered into the Statute Book and has life threatening ramifications.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

http://www.panopticonblog.com/2013/02/07/vexatious-and-manifestly-unreasonable-requests-definitive-guidance-from-the-upper-tribunal/

Attn Judge Wikeley, Upper Tribunal

Dear Judge Wikeley

I appreciate that you have concluded your business with the Subject Title and I am now pursuing Court of Appeal Application. However, there is now NEW evidence recently produced by the Devon County Council (DCC) which supports my allegations that the DCC are perverting the course of justice and circumventing the FOIA 2000.

Please see the attached response from the DCC to a member of the Public Mr Gary Howlet ref# 03505. The full History of this particular FOIA request available at the whatdotheyknow (WDTK) website.

Initially, the DCC refused the request from a Mr Gary Howlett claiming he was in consort with a 3rd party which MUST have been me. They refused the FOIA request on grounds of Section 14 (1) Vexatious.

Mr Howlett then requested the DCC to review their decision and Mr Martin Lawrence upheld Mr Howlett’s complaint and overturned the Vexatious decision.

Mr Lawrence’s review decision is of paramount importance to my allegations of wrongdoing by the DCC because, he has now contradicted evidence used by the DCC at my Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in connection with GIA/3037/2011, which has now been cast in the Statute Book.

Mr Lawrence claims the DCC do not own the Rugby Bridge, which is a complete fabrication of the truth because the DCC adopted this bridge some two years ago as informed to the UT and they hold vicarious liability for the Sandy Park Bridge for all aspects of engineering, health and safety and public liability.

I appreciate the correct course of action will be for Mr Howllet to pursue his complaint with the ICO, but that will involve the unnecessary cost to a member of the public AGAIN..

Mr Lawrence knew, or should have known, he was/is giving false and misleading information to Mr Howlett because it was a mirror image of my request. Mr Lawrence response in para 1-2-3 in attached letter are at best factually incorrect and at worst concocted evidence to pervert the Course of Justice,……..

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Please also see previous posting re this subject.

Case 2. GIA/3037/2011.
This case started in May 2009 and has since proceeded through the Information Commissioner’s Office, then the First Tier Tribunal and then the Upper Tribunal and now currently awaits the confirmation of acceptance by the Court of Appeal.

1. My FOIA to the Devon County Council for technical data on the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge was refused as vexatious by the DCC

2. I appealed the DCC decision to the ICO, who upheld the Vexatious decision by the DCC.

3. I appealed the ICO vexatious decision to the FTT, who overturned the ICO decision claiming my FOI was straightforward and benign and instructed the DCC to release the sought after data.

4. The ICO and DCC appealed the FTT to Upper Tribunal, who overturned the FTT and agreed my FOI request was indeed vexatious. The UT decision is dated Jan 2013.

5. A triple Consolidated Hearing was held on Nov 14th 2012 as a test case before the Upper Tribunal.

It should be noted that the Upper Tribunal Judge made a Court Order for the ICO & DCC to produce 13 Ghost Documents, but they failed to meet this court order. Hence, the decision was based on hearsay and Ghost Documents.

I have also made another FOIA request to the HSE related to the two above cases and the HSE have refused my FOIA requests based on Section 14 , VEXATIOUS and this decision has been upheld by the ICO.

I have also made a similar FOIA request to the Met office HQ, which has been refused under National Security, and is currently before the ICO on appeal.

The two main FOIA Cases have cost the taxpayers thousands of pounds to date and the DCC have, in my view apparently conspired with the ICO and Upper Tribunal to Pervert the Course of Justice.

The two cases continue.