Alan Dransfield's Blog

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 15 August 2018 at 10:09:17 BST
To: <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>

Subject: Complaint to ICO re: Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea[Ref. FS50772688]

15th August 2018

Case Reference Number FS50772688

Dear Mr Dransfield

I am writing with regard to your email of 1 August 2018 in which you explain
that you wish bring a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of a freedom of
information request.

As you will re-call, we wrote to you earlier this year on 15 March 2018 and
explained that we were not prepared to accept any further complaints from you
under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A copy of our
letter is attached.

We do not consider the circumstances to have changed since that letter was
issued. Therefore, we consider your application to the ICO in relation to
the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of this request to also
be frivolous and/or vexatious for the purposes of section 50(2)(c) of FOIA. We
will therefore not be accepting this complaint.

Yours sincerely

The Information Commissioner’s Office

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2014392/fs50657560.pdf

Email sent – Thu 06/07/2017 22:06

Ben Bradshaw MP for Exeter

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please bring this ICO decision
to the attention of your colleagues at the shadow government. This
decision by the ICO cites Dransfield Vexatious decision, which quite
frankly smells a bit fishy to me – see para 9.

In light of the Brexit negotiations currently ongoing and in
particular the UK Fishing Boundaries and Catch Quotations, it beggars belief the
ICO and UK Fisheries can cite vexatious exemptions. This vexatious decision is
yet further example of systemic fraud and deception by the ICO.

Yours etc

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – Tue 06/06/2017 20:19

Information Commissioner’s
Office

Dear Sirs

Please see your Decision Notice below.
This decision is unlawful because you have failed to cite the vexatious court precedent which you have relied upon to reach your
vexatious decision notice. As your are aware, the GIA/3037/2011
Dransfield v ICO is the UK’s leading vexatious court authority.

This Decision Notice is therefore null and void and will
need to rescheduled. I wonder if such mistake are commonplace because the
ICO does not operate any ISO 9000 series, or is it because they consider themselves
above the law?

With thanks

Yours Sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013908/fs50650170.pdf

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&p=alan+dransfield+project+camelot#id=1&vid=1ffb7f05336433e169ded78555cb4f34&action=clickAlan
M Dransfield

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.”