Alan Dransfield's Blog

Fri 03/01/2020 22:29

To: Peter.Sigee@judicary.net

Dear Sir

I am deeply concerned that you intend to conclude the Coroner’s Inquiry on the subject title next Monday 6th Jan. You may or you may not be aware that I have an open complaint of egregious conduct and maladministration by Mr Paul Crowther  the British Transport Police (BTP) Chief Constable. There is demonstrable evidence that the BTP have failed to follow their own Policy and Procedures eg witness statements not signed, earliest witness statement two week post death.

Mr Ian Henderson (IH) Officer in Charger (OIC) has adopted a cavalier attitude to an open and shut case of suicide. I was friend of RAB and I do not believe that he committed suicide and the BTC advised me at the offset, I was an interested party and I would be kept updated. I have received no update and as far as I am concerned my claim of egregious conduct and maladministration stands. There appears to be a myriad of  irregularities and anomalies with the BTP case management i.e., imposter as next of kin, removal of RAB’s life savings from the Bank 24 hrs after RAB’s death, the Genuine NOK Zelda Davies was rejected.  Text Messages from RAB’s Phone 10 mins before his death whilst his phone was known to be in RAB’s house. I have been following this case closely and it would appear to me the BTP are akin to the Pink Panther or Carry on up the Copper. Some 5 months post death and not a pip squeak from the BTP. I was planning to write to you post Coroners Decision. An integral part of the Coroners decision is to learn lessons to avoid suicides, and I would expect the coroner to condemn the Cheshire &Chester Council (CWCC)whose actions and inactions have driven RAB to his death, if indeed it was a suicide, because in essence the egress conduct and maladministration by the harassment and false witness  claiming RAB had submitted thousands of abusive  emails to CWCC officials, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The ICO instructed the CWCC to release personal data at the beginning of July 2019 but instead of releasing RAB personal data they commenced a High Court Custodial sentence of RAB. They knew or should have known this was in contempt of Court. I state categorically  that if CWCC had obeyed the ICO order to release RAB’s personal data he would be alive today. This is something that I hope you can share with your fellow coroners nationwide as a lesson learned. 

With thanks

Yours sincerely 

Alan M Dransfield

FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog

The following letter is from the ICO and 4 days later the Chester West and Chester Council initiated custodial sentence action against Rob Pickthall.

Subject: Data Protection Complaint – Cheshire West and Chester (SAR 11.3.19)[Ref. RFA0841076]

11 July 2019

Case Reference Number RFA0841076

Dear Mr Pickthall,
 
Thank you for your complaint against Cheshire West and Chester Council. This case has been given the following reference number RFA0841076.
 
Your complaint states that the Council have failed to respond to you subject access request of 11 March 2019.
 
The ICO’s role 

Part of our role is to consider complaints from individuals who believe there has been an infringement of their data protection rights.
 
The law says we must investigate data protection complaints to an appropriate extent. We will put most of our effort into dealing with matters we think give us the best opportunity to make a significant difference to an organisation’s information rights practices.
 
Depending on the circumstances, we will decide whether or not to take action against the organisation and what form our action will take. We do this by taking an overview of all concerns that are raised about that organisation with a view to improving their compliance with the data protection framework. Our decision will not affect your ability to enforce your rights through the courts.
 
Our View
 
We have considered the information available in relation to this complaint and we are of the view that the Council has not complied with their Data Protection obligations in this instance.
 
As such, we have now asked the Council to respond to you directly as a matter of priority.
 
Further Action
 
We do not consider that any further action from the ICO is necessary at this time and we do not intend to pursue this complaint any further. However, please be advised that we keep a record of all the complaints raised with us about the way organisations process personal information. The information we gather from complaints may form the basis for action in the future where appropriate.
 
Right to judicial remedy and compensation [GDPR Articles 79 & 82]
 
Individuals have the right to take proceedings to court if they believe their information rights have been infringed. This means that if a court is satisfied that the individual’s rights have been infringed it may order the controller or processor in question to take steps to comply with its Data protection obligations. Individuals who have suffered material or non-material damage (such as distress) as a result of an infringement may also be able to receive compensation from the controller or processor.
 
Please be advised that this is not a process with which the Information Commissioner’s Office is able to assist and we recommend that you seek independent legal advice if you wish to pursue this course of action.
 
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
 
Amy Higginson
Lead Case Officer