Alan Dransfield's Blog

Vexatious to question London Legacy about a work-related death.

Email sent – Mon 17/04/2017 08:40

Information Commissioners Office

Dear Sirs

This is the first time in five years the Information Commissioner’s Office has reached a
correct, non-vexatious decision. I refer to the following ICO
decision which has refused a vexatious decision from Camden
Council. Oh my God, wonders will never cease.

In respect of this particular
Decision Notice, the ICO has been seen to doing the job properly and
professionally by overturning Camden CC vexatious decision.

Does this mean the ICO is now
prepared to hold a forensic investigation into the 6,000 wrongful vexatious
decisions based on the Dransfield GIA/3037/2011?

I wonder why the Information
Commissioner has suddenly decided to apply common law and common sense to this
Vexatious claptrap from the Camden Council.

Whilst this is a step in the right direction, it is too little
too late, as I will not change my mind that the ICO is rotten to the core ………

with thanks

Alan M Dransfield

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013905/fer0637810.pdf

Email sent – 13/04/2017 11:53

Information Commissioner’s Office

Attn Elizabeth Denham

Dear Madam

I draw your attention to the following two(2) decision
notices, which are unlawful.

The first case is a complaint
brought against the Information Commissioner’s Office, in which the ICO has investigated against
themselves. This is not acceptable because the ICO lose their independence and
it is a gross conflict of interest. Any fair-minded person would agree that this
is not conducive to transparency and accountability.

I am not aware how many times this has happened, but I would
suggest you check your files and initiate a forensic inquiry into ICO v
ICO Decsion Notices. For sure, there are at least 1/2 Dransfield v ICO
decision notices. Being able to self-examine and self -investigate beggars belie,f but nothing surprises me anymore with the ICO. They
appear to be above the law. This may well be happening because of fiduciary failure in the chain of command right through to the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, who is more than guilty of wilfull blindness.

The second case is related to
the Cabinet Office in which they have used the section 14/1
vexatious exemption. This decision is unlawful because you have failed to cite
the Court Precedent/Authority to the complainant. We must assume you were
relying upon the Dransfield vexatious hogwash Decision GIA
3037/2011, but you failed to include it in your Decision
Notice; hence, that DN is unlawful.

As you are aware, all my
correspondence to the ICO is being thrown straight into the bin or
at least not acknowledged.

It strikes me your Case
Management Team need further training into the FOIA 2000.

It is also very apparent that
the ICO is not double-checking their Decision Notices before publication. The
fact the ICO does not operate an ISO 9000 QA-QC is serious, which would
explain the root cause of such cock-ups.

I will take this opportunity to
report your Northern Ireland Representative Ken Macdonald who has failed to
respond to my FOIA requests against the HSE in Northern Ireland. At best,
the ICO both HQ and NI are treating me in a shabbily cavalier
manner, and at worst they are circumventing the FOIA 2000, section 77 in
particular, with an aim to pervert the course of Justice. I suggest the
latter.

I do believe the time has come for a forensic
investigation into the conduct of the ICO Management

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

FOIA Campaigner & Social Watchdog.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013864/fer0646554.pdf

“The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the legislation. In Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield1, the Upper Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that request. The Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure” (paragraph 27). The decision clearly establishes that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.”

Email sent – Thu 09/02/2017 19:34

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Paul Arnold

In light of the breaking news from Scotland that the PFI
schools in Edinburgh, which blew down in the wind, have been officially
reported as unsafe by Mr John Cole’s report, I now ask you to reconsider your
vexatious decision last year against me ref the 6 PFI schools in Devon.

It also behoves your duty of care to contact the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tier on this matter.

As you are aware the Devon
County Council refused my FOIA request for the As Built Health and Safety Files
on the grounds of a vexatious exemption, and the ICO upheld that vexatious
decision.

The only way to rebuild the public confidence in Devon as to whether or not these 6 PFI schools are
safe or not rely upon the release of the As Built Health and Safety
Drawings.

Please revisit your decision based on Mr John Coles’ report
in to public safety at PFI schools.

with thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

NB Ben Bradshaw MP

You really should take me seriously.

Email sent – 29/01/2017 05:37

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Arnold

There is another major discrepancy with your total figures for the ICO Decision Notices. Today’s total is 7614 and
yesterday’s total was 9670. There can be only three explanations for these false figures

1. Gremlins in your IT System.

2. Incompetence of the person(s) inputting this data.

3. ICO massaging their Decision
Notice figures to assist fraud.

I would suggest the latter.

It is nearly two weeks since I alerted you two gentlemen to
this anomaly. What have you done about it?

It should be noted also that you have not published one single Decision Notice since 12th Jan 2017.

For your information, action and
files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

Email sent – Fri 27/01/2017 05:30

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Arnold

Your website total number being displayed today is 7868 and the figures column in the left hand side don’t add up either.

The is the seventh total discrepancy this week. Please give me the name and title of the person responsible for publishing the Decision Notice’s total figures.

For clarity it was 7598 yesterday at this time and today is 7868. That’s a discrepancy of 270 DN’s because not one single new DN has been added to the website.

For your information, action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomtalkradioscotland/2017/01/20/allan-dransfield-len-lawrence