Alan Dransfield's Blog

lessons_lj-2.pdf (wirralinittogether.blog)

Sent – Sat 01/06/2024 11:36

Information Commissioner’s Office.

Dear Sir

As you are aware, the ICO have failed to process my Subject  Access Request which was submitted to the ICO 3 years ago.

Could you please explain the delay in processing my SAR.

As you are aware the ICO have imposed a lifetime ban against me from using the FOIA 2000, hence, it would appear you are refusing my SAR under the  Lifetime Ban of me using the FOIA.

I am sure you are aware the GDPR and the FOIA are independent STATUTES of Law.

Approx 6 months ago you asked me for my postal address  because my SAR was too voluminous for you to deal with and you intend to send me my SAR via POST which was an OBVIOUS  LIE.

I would be grateful for the Name and Contact details for the ICO Data Manager.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfeld

FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2023/4023577/ic-169575-t0d9.pdf

14. The emphasis on protecting public authorities’ resources from
    unreasonable requests was acknowledged by the Upper Tribunal (UT) in
    the leading case on section 14(1), Information Commissioner vs Devon
    County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013)
    (“Dransfield”)2
    . Although the case was subsequently appealed to the
    Court of Appeal, the UT’s general guidance was supported, and
    established the Commissioner’s approach.
    
15. Dransfield established that the key question for a public authority to ask
    itself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or
    unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
    
16. The four broad themes considered by the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield
    were:
    • the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
    • the motive (of the requester);
    • the value or serious purpose (of the request); and
    • any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
    

fs50587507.pdf (ico.org.uk)

scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2018csih80.pdf?sfvrsn=0

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2023/12/information-commissioner-s-office-mbe-awards-in-the-king-s-new-year-honours-list/

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2023/4027380/ic-241783-d5t8.pdf

Dear Sirs

I acknowledge and thank you for your invitation for me to join the Covid Public Inquiry  (PI) as a Core Participant. I fervently do believe the Information Commissioner (IC) has acted in concert with several PAs to prevent and obstruct any members of the public wishing to submit a FOIA request relating to Covid 19.

The Cabinet Office and NHS have refused hundreds of refusals to the FOIA requests under the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedent under section 14 of the FOIA 2000.

I would like to send the PI 1/2 dozen of such ICO Decision Notices for your perusal and consideration for selection  of Core Participant.

The nature of the fraud is the Public Authority will receive a FOIA request and refuse it under section 14 of the FOIA 2000 and then the FOI requester appeals to the ICO, who then uphold the Vexatious Decision Notice. For clarity there are numerous PAs Nationwide actively involved with Covid 19. I hope this meets with your approval.

With thanks

Yours sincerely 

Alan M Dransfield

FOI Campaigner and Social watchdog