Alan Dransfield's Blog

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

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:37 PM

Re: Internal review response[Ref. RCC0533022]
Dear Madam

I am not satisfied this is a review and I am not satisfied you have even taken me seriously. You have merely repeated the original vexatious decision.

Please show me how you reviewed this decision

Alan M Dransfield
———————————

12 March 2014

Case Reference Number RCC0533022

Dear Mr Dransfield

Your request for an internal review of the handling of your information request case reference IRQ0529459, for the following information, has been passed to me to undertake.

“If I understand the subject title correctly the ICO should have been operating a paperless office for the last decade.
Can you please advise me when you expect the ICO to be compliant with such standards.”

I uphold the refusal of this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) for the reasons given in our letter of 28 February 2014.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the review you may make a section 50 complaint to the ICO.

How to complain

Information on how to complain is available on the ICO website at:

By post: If your supporting evidence is in hard copy, you can fill in the Word version of our complaint form, print it out and post it to us with your supporting evidence. A printable Freedom of Information Act complaints form is available from the ICO website. Please send to:

Case Reception Unit
First Contact Team
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

By email: If all your supporting evidence is available electronically, you can fill in our online complaint form. Important: information included in the form, and any supporting evidence will be sent to us by email.

Yours sincerely

Lisa Adshead
Group Manager

Dear Mr Dransfield

Thank you for your email of 12 February 2014 in which you have made a request for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Specifically in your email you asked;
“Please provide with full details of the final pension details for all senior ICO executive staff.”

We are treating your request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

The ICO already publishes some information on its website about the pension arrangements of its senior executive team. This information can be found in our Annual Reports and also in the Management Board’s Register of interests;

http://ico.org.uk/about_us/performance/annual_reports
http://ico.org.uk/about_us/our_organisation/management_board/registers_of_interest

As this information is reasonably accessible to you from our website this information is exempt under section 21 of the FOIA.

The information on our website represents the extent of the information we intend to publish about pension arrangements for senior ICO staff. We consider that disclosure beyond this would be unfair.

However we recognise that the scope of your request for ‘full details of the final pension details for all senior ICO executive staff’ extends beyond information which is already published and we are refusing this further element your request as vexatious under the provisions of section 14(1) of FOIA.

As you will be aware we have previously explained to you our reasons why the various requests you have submitted to the ICO are refused in reliance on section 14(1). Therefore we do not intend to repeat these in any detail here. However you should understand that our reasons for refusal of this request closely follow those explained previously.

The frequency of your requests

As you will recall we explained in our letter of 29 January 2014, that:

“We consider that, collectively, receipt of this number of requests within a short period of time, is in itself highly likely to be disruptive and create a considerable amount of work for ICO staff, in addition to their regular duties. We further consider that submission of this number of requests in quick succession is indicative of an obsessive approach to the ICO’s activities, and that a reasonable person would recognise that this would be likely to cause disruption.”

Despite the above explanation of 29 January 2014, which in itself was a refusal of 15 information requests, you have continued to submit requests to the ICO. In the month since this explanation was provided to you we have received a further six information requests from you including this one. We have explained to you the difficulties your frequent requests present for the ICO.

The subject of your request

Given that the ICO already publishes some information about the pension arrangements of its executive team and this request is the latest in a stream of requests on varying topics that you have made, we consider that your request is intended primarily to disrupt the work of the ICO and to continue the harassment of those individuals in support of your personal agenda, without any reasonable justification. As we have mentioned before, rather than being a genuine attempt to obtain information it seems this could be an attempt to find either a topic for an FOI request which will not be refused as vexatious (which is quite possibly itself a vexatious act) or an attempt to gather evidence to support the view you have recently expressed, that the ICO will refuse any request regardless of subject material.

This topic is therefore also one which we consider would add to the drain on the ICO’s resources which responding to your requests would create. It is therefore likely that future similar requests will also be refused without acknowledgement or response, under the provisions of section 17(6) of FOIA.

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:19 PM

Subject: Re: Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council EA/2010/0152

Dear Mr Bailey, ICO

Thank you for that and I have the following comments:

1.you don’t sound too certain to which Court Authority the DCC rely on.

2. The GIA/3037 /2011 is NOT a binding authority as you claim. At worst , it is a rogue judgement …… and at worst it a document to pervert the course of justice.

Alan M Dransfield

———————————————–
On 14 Mar 2014, at 11:36,

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Further to paragraph 12 of the attached case management note, please find attached a copy of the authorities bundle index. A copy of the authorities bundle will be sent out in the post today (I apologise for the delay). You will note that I have included in the index those authorities the Tribunal has directed should be included. Having considered the parties’ skeleton arguments, I do not believe that the parties are seeking to rely upon to any other binding authorities.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey
Richard Bailey Solicitor
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF.