Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent 02 June 2014 08:40

Attn Rt Hon Simon Hughes Minister For Justice

Dear Mr Hughes

ICO Meltdown

Polite follow up please to my letter of the 1st May 2014 in which I have raised
my concerns for the subject title.

Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations, the gravity of my claims
behoves your office to respond. Common courtesy would also expect your office to
acknowledge or respond to such letters.

Wit thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

11 April 2014 08:59
First Tier Tribunal

Dear Sir

Further to my earlier email that the FTT is disseminating false and misleading information about the Judiciary and their legal obligation to the FOIA 2000.

I draw your attention to HMSO legislation records offices act 1958 which clearly makes your earlier statement invalid. Please issue a corrective statement.

Alan M Dransfield

07 April 2014 07:05
Attn the ICO Caseworkers

Dear Sirs

Polite follow up please to my FOIA request for specific information how many times the ICO have used “COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS” with former ICO staff in the last 10 years.

Please also understand that I do not wish to receive any more of your IRQ nonsense prefix. I wish my FOIA request to be treated under the FOIA 2000 and to have a FS decision noticed attached to your response.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Monday, April 07, 2014 6:08 AM

Subject: COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ICO

Attn Gemma Garvey

Information Governance manager at the ICO

Dear Madam

Further to your ongoing investigation ref my complaints of fraud and maladministration by ICO Officials, please see the following extract from your Mr Steven Dickinson

Can you please explain the significance of theIRQ decisions as opposed to the normal ICO FS reference.

“The ICO allocates case references according to what the specific case is about. The case prefix ‘IRQ’ denotes that the case is dealing with an Information Request to the ICO (eg an FOI request, a request for environmental information under the EIR, or a subject access request under the DPA). The response to an ‘IRQ’ case is not a ‘decision’, it is simply the ICO’s response to the FOI request it has received.”

He (Mr Dickinson) now claims that his recent VEXATIOUS decisions on any IRQ prefix are NOT decisions.

I am somewhat confused but I suspect this is part of the wider conspiracy by…..senior ICO Managers to diss and mis-inform FOIA requesters.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:42 AM

Subject: Misconduct by the ICO at the FTT hearing in London Yesterday (24th Mar 2014)

ICO Information Governance

Dear Gemma

I wish to add yet a further complaint about the conduct of the ICO. I refer to a FTT hearing yesterday (2 in number) yesterday in London:-

1.EA/2010/0152. Dransfield v ICO&DCC

2.EA./2013/0237.Dransfield v Stockport Borough Council.

The ICO were not represented in either case. Judge Warren claimed yesterday that it was most discourteous of Richard Bailey ( ICO Solicitor) not to attend the hearings yesterday in London. I consider it not only discourteous ,I consider it flagrant Contempt of Court.

It beggars belief that Judge Warren allowed the Case to be heard.

For your information,action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Case Reference Number IRQ0499734

Dear Mr Dransfield
Request for Information

Further to our acknowledgement, we are now in a position to provide you with a response to your request for information dated 31 May 2013.

As you know we have dealt with your request in accordance with your ‘right to know’ under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which entitles you to be provided with a copy of any information ‘held’ by a public authority, unless an appropriate exemption applies.

Request

In your e-mail of 31 May 2013 you asked us to provide you with the following information:

‘Please provide me with the following information related to the recent publication of the New 37 Page Vexatious Request documentation, published 15th May2013.

1.Who made the final decision that New Criteria and guidance was required.

2.Copies of all letters, emails ,internal memos on any related issue with the New 37 Page document.

3.Total Costs for the documentation

4.Who from the ICO authorised this document.

5.Was the 37 page document reviewed by the ICO Legal Department, if so please provided the approved Legal Advisor’s signature.

6. Did the ICO consult any 3rd parties on this new vexatious document, if so please provide copies of such consultation.

7. Did the ICO consult the Upper Tribunal or the Department of Justice before they published the 37 page vexatious guidelines, if so please provide letter or email both ways.

8. Please provide any documentation or instruction you may hold which Authorises ICO Officers or ICO Barristers to Compile Final Decision Notices for approval signatures of the Upper Tribunals Final Decision Notices.’

Response to request

In this instance we have decided to refuse to provide you with the information you are requesting under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This refusal has been made having carefully considered the ICO’s new and recently published guidance on the application of section 14 FOIA, http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.ashx.

Section 14 of FOIA is intended to protect public authorities from those who might abuse the right to request information. It states:

‘14.—(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply
with a request for information if the request is vexatious.’

The ICO’s new guidance explains that when deciding on whether or not a request is vexatious, the key question to be asked is, ‘…whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.’

There can be a number of indicators which point to a request being vexatious. Further to these, a public authority is able to take into account its previous dealings with a requestor.

In this situation we believe that there is an over-arching theme which runs through a number of your requests to the ICO. At least 12 of your requests, in the ICO’s opinion, can be linked to this theme.

You made a complaint to us regarding Devon County Council’s (DCC) decision to apply section 14(1) FOIA to a request of yours. This complaint led to the issuing of a decision notice under section 50 FOIA, upholding the application of section 14(1) by DCC. You subsequently appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal, which upheld your appeal. The ICO appealed that decision to the Upper Tribunal, it upheld the ICO’s appeal.

All 12 of these requests relate either directly to your original complaint, to the subsequent appeals, to those involved in the complaint and appeals process and to the ICO’s relationship and dealings with the Information Rights Tribunal (please see appendix at the end of this response for the full list of requests). Ultimately all of these requests stem from your dissatisfaction with the decisions in relation to your complaint made to the ICO and Upper Tribunal and your belief that the ICO’s application of section 14(1) FOIA is incorrect and, as you have stated, our newly produced guidance is unlawful.

Your persistence in this matter, despite the binding conclusion of the Upper Tribunal, can be fairly characterised as an attempt to re-open an issue that has clearly already been dealt with. This is particularly the case when considering the legal standing of the Upper Tribunal’s decision and the fact that to some extent it has informed our new guidance on section 14 FOIA.

Further to this, you have made complaints about the conduct of the members of staff at the ICO who dealt with your complaint and the appeals process, none of which have been substantiated. It is clear that such complaints could cause irritation and distress to those individuals to which the complaints relate. For example, in an email of yours to a member of the ICO’s legal department, Richard Bailey, of 4 June 2012 you stated the following:

‘I wish to introduce the Fraud Act 2006 for my forthcoming TEST CASE and I seek the UT permission to use it please.
The Fraud Act 2006 is relevant to the TEST CASE because there is prima facie evidence on record that BOTH the ICO Solicitor Richard Bailey and the DCC have knowingly and wilfully submitted false and misleading information to the Upper Tribunal to assist the passage of fraud by the DCC and to Pervert the Course of Justice.’

This can be seen further in the way you have corresponded with staff, using language which goes beyond that which is necessary. For example, in an email to the ICO of 9 October 2012, you wrote the following:

‘I don’t wish you to respond to me Sir, I wish you to elevate my complaint against Richard Bailey and YOU to your Line Manager, that is assuming you do have a superior and don’t answer directly to GOD??!!’

Although this is not overtly offensive, in that it does not use profane language, the tone can perhaps be viewed as at least disrespectful.

Although you clearly believe that your complaints are valid with regards to these individuals and the conclusion of the complaint process, your persistence and your inability to accept our decision, one which has been accepted by an independent body (the Upper Tribunal) has eroded what serious purpose there was to your requests.

Following on from this, the necessity of the ICO’s Information Governance department having to deal with continued requests on this theme, despite the erosion of their serious purpose and when it is clear that the answers which are provided are not accepted, is having a detrimental impact on the ability of Information Governance to carry out its day-to-day work. It takes staff away from core work which they could be doing.

It is for these reasons that the ICO believes your request to be vexatious and as such, we do not feel we are obliged to respond to it.

I would also like to point out that any further requests which relate to the theme identified in this refusal notice, will remain unanswered.

Review Procedure

I hope this response sets out clearly our position in relation to this request. If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled you should write to the Information Governance Department at the address below or e-mail informationgovernance@ico.gsi.gov.uk.

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40 working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint handler under the legislation. To make such an application, please write to the First Contact Team, at the address below or visit the ‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

A copy of our review procedure is available here.

Yours sincerely

Richard Sisson
Lead Information Governance Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
www.ico.gov.uk

Appendix

Attn Mr Chris Grayling. Secretary of State for Justice

Dear Sir

I wish to point out a situation with the ICO /FTT and Upper Tribunal Courts where a considerable sum of Money could be saved from the Public Purse in relations to FOIA Costs.

At this Juncture, is not standard operating procedure for the ICO/FTT & UT to request a copy of the sought-after information via a closed bundle when disputes become active, i.e. appeals to the ICO from public authority decisions.

If closed bundles became obligatory at ICO caseworker level, there would be a considerable cost saving to the public purse. I have two FOIA cases which have been running for 4 years without any requests for closed bundles. In particular, I refer to GIA/3037/2011 and EA2010/0152 – the former now before the Court of Appeal.

I also have another FOIA case against the ICO and the Olympic Delivery Authority in which the FTT Registrar has requested a closed bundle of the sought after data from day one.

I am but a mere layman but I feel if closed bundle became SOP to at least the ICO caseworker or ICO Solicitor level, a quicker resolution could be reached thus saving millions of pounds of public funds.

In such austere times, I believe any proposal to save public funds should be investigated. I believe my proposals would save millions of pounds of taxpayers money and Free up HM Courts on FOIA Cases.

For your information action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfieldf

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZomTe6_Zk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxsZomTe6_Zk

Graham Smith