Alan Dransfield's Blog

To: GRC at HM Courts

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:56 AM

Subject: FOIA REQUEST ref PRESIDENT OF THE FTT

Under the Protection of the FOIA 200 please provide me with a full bio data of Sir Nicholas Roger Warren. The reason I ask for this information is for the full clarification of the FTT President who signs himself as NJ Warren. My understanding is that NJ Warren and Sir Nicholas Roger Warren the FTT President are one and the same.

I believe this is an attempt to confuse the general public and I do not consider it is right and proper that any court authority signed by NJ Warren is acceptable. Whilst this is initially a FOI request, it doubles up as a formal complaint against NJ Warren the FTT/UT President.

In the interest of clarity and justice, I believe that both the FTT and the Upper Tribunal Judges should sign their full names and title on their decisions.

Perusal of the FTT decisions clearly show an alarming STRIKE OUT rate by NJ Warren .e.g 100 out of 160. That is an alarming strikeout rate. There is a striking similarity between the ICO vexatious decisions and NJ WARREN strike out rate which are largely requested by the ICO, which no doubt will leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

I fervently believe that all future decision by this Judge should be signed as Sir Nicholas Roger Warren. FTT/UT President.

For your information,action and files.

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent to Ben Bradshaw MP March 14, 2014 7:04 AM

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see my complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is self explanatory. The ICO has not even acknowledged this letter, which reflects their typically cavalier attitude towards the Rule of Law.

I now turn to my MP and request you to elevate this matter to Chris Grayling, the Minister of Justice.

It is evident to me the ICO has not only consistently failed their Mission Statement to uphold the HM Statutory FOIA 2000 & 2012, they have flagrantly abused the FOI Act 2000 in bad faith to pervert the course of justice.

In light of the recent FOIA Case decision in the Court of Appeal yesterday ref HM Prince of Wales and the ongoing phone hacking debacle, I call upon my MP to act on these allegations of bad law and bad faith by the ICO and HM Courts.

There is prima facie evidence in the public domain that the ICO has flagrantly abused section 14 (Vexatious Exemptions) nearly two hundred (200) times since Jan 2013. In particular, I refer to GIA/30337/2011 Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council. Not only have they abused their powers of office and failed their own mission statement, they have been part of a wider conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and in particular section 77 of the FOIA 2000.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

To: Richard Bailey

Cc: Ben BRADSHAW

Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 3:04
PM

Subject: Electronic Records
Management

Dear Mr Bailey

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.

With thanks

Your sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 3:43
PM

Subject: Re: EA/2011/0152 Dransfield v ICO
& Devon County Council

EA/2010/0152 Dransfield v ICO &DCC

Dear Mr Bailey

You either misunderstood my request or your IT technical knowledge is
limited. It is after all 2014. Hence, I would have envisaged the ICO would now
be a paperless office; obviously not. If you ran a paperless system you would not have to scan ANY documents.

Quite frankly, I am not surprised the ICO operate in such tardy, disorganised manner because of its draconian paper recording system.

As a keen environmentalist, I am deeply concerned that the ICO do not run a
paperless office records system. I think our American cousins have been
paperless for a number of years. I am also deeply concerned the ICO operate
without any QA/QC controls as in ISO 9000, and it would also automatically
follow the ICO are in breach of ISO 14000.

Quite frankly, I see no justification whatsoever that you cannot operate a paperless records system.

Maybe this is something you could look into!

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

…………………………………………………..

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr
Dransfield,

I note your request
for an electronic copy of the final bundle and supplementary bundle. However, I
do not have an electronic copy of the bundles which would, in any event, be too
large to scan in and send by email.

Yours
Sincerely

Richard
Bailey
Solicitor

To: Richard Bailey

Cc: GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk ; BRADSHAW Ben

Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 3:58
PM

Subject: EA/2010/0152 Dransfield v ICO
&DCC Paperless Office

Dear Mr Bailey

Further to my earlier email please see the attached guidelines for a paperless office. There are a myriad of benefits of a paperless office.

1.Better record keeping.

2.Environmentally Friendly

3.Less space required to store mountains of hard xopy papers which is a hugh fire risk.

4.Quicker access for the general public and ICO and court staff.

5.More efficient records for the ICO

6.More effective for audit control

7.More effective for case costing and auditing.

8.Less staff required

9.Quicker access for HM Tribunals.

10.More conducive to ISO 9000 and ISO 14000

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the ICO couldn’t run a paperless office from Initial FOIA Request thru’ to Upper Tribunal and beyond.
It is not rocket science.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Self-proclaimed FOI Campaigner Alan M Dransfield obtained another victory over the Devon County Council (DCC) and the Information Commissionioner (ICO) recently.

The Upper Tribunal has recently overturned a First Tier Tribunal “Contempt of Court ” charge which was levelled at the Exeter FOI Campaigner in May this year.

The First Tier Tribunal has been ordered to carry out a retrial because the Contempt of Court Charges were made in error.

The sixty-three year old campaigner is delighted with the Upper Tribunal decision and it had increased in confidence somewhat in the British justice system. He now awaits a hearing date for the fifth retrial on this matter.

Dransfield was thrown out of the FTT court in May this year on Contempt of Court charges, which he claims were made soley to pervert the Course of Justice. He is fighting a five year battle to obtain technical data via the FOIA 2000, on the six Private Finance Initiative schools, which he claims are unsafe and unfit for purpose.

Dransfield is also awaiting a Court of Appeal decision related to the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Ground and Bridge in relation to his five year battle with the DCC on a FOIA request for the Chiefs Bridge, which Dransfield claims is also unsafe.

Dransfield said that he was very disappointed with the DCC, who appear to be throwing thousands of pounds fighting his FOIA requests, when it would be a lot cheaper for them to provide the sought after data. He is also very sceptical about the transparency, accountability and security at the DCC & ICO.

Both cases continue.