VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, February 07, 2019 19:33:40https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013939/fs50610253.pdf
"83. The term “vexatious” is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the issue of vexatious requests in the Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield (UKUT 440 (AAC), 28 January 2013).1 The UT commented that “vexatious” could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. This definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious."
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, August 23, 2018 19:16:11
Email sent - 23/08/2018 18:53
Attn The President of the Upper Tribunal Mr Justice
In light of last nights documentary on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ref the Carillion Collapse (CC), I
ask the UT President to revisit his earlier decision that Judge Wikely had
acted within the law ref Case
GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO. I reiterate Judge Wikely was complicit with the
ICO to pervert the course of justice ref the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.
In mid 2016 my appeal to the UT relating to 6 PFI schools
in Exeter was rejected based on the Court of Appeal C3/1855/2015. Moreover and
more importantly the Dispatches programme supports my claims the 6 PFI school in
Exeter were/are substandard and unsafe. It also supports my allegation that you
have acted unlawfully by not taking my allegation against Judge Wikely
seriously. In essence, you have been complicit with Judge Wikely and the ICO to
cover up serious crimes and to circumvent the ICO.
Revisit your decision
ref my complaints against Judge Wikely ref GIA/3037/2011.
Revist the UT
decision to dismiss my appeal to the UT.
Alan M Dransfield
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, August 16, 2018 05:36:41
Date: 15 August 2018 at 10:09:17 BST
Subject: Complaint to ICO re: Royal Borough of Kensington and
15th August 2018
Case Reference Number FS50772688
Dear Mr Dransfield
I am writing with regard to your email of 1 August 2018 in which you explain
that you wish bring a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of a freedom of
As you will re-call, we wrote to you earlier this year on 15 March 2018 and
explained that we were not prepared to accept any further complaints from you
under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A copy of our
letter is attached.
We do not consider the circumstances to have changed since that letter was
issued. Therefore, we consider your application to the ICO in relation to
the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of this request to also
be frivolous and/or vexatious for the purposes of section 50(2)(c) of FOIA. We
will therefore not be accepting this complaint.
The Information Commissioner’s Office
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 09, 2017 08:07:02https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2014392/fs50657560.pdf
Email sent - Thu 06/07/2017 22:06
Ben Bradshaw MP for Exeter
Dear Mr Bradshaw
Please bring this ICO decision
to the attention of your colleagues at the shadow government. This
decision by the ICO cites Dransfield Vexatious decision, which quite
frankly smells a bit fishy to me - see para 9.
In light of the Brexit negotiations currently ongoing and in
particular the UK Fishing Boundaries and Catch Quotations, it beggars belief the
ICO and UK Fisheries can cite vexatious exemptions. This vexatious decision is
yet further example of systemic fraud and deception by the ICO.
Alan M Dransfield
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, June 11, 2017 08:09:56
Email sent - Tue 06/06/2017 20:19
Please see your Decision Notice below.
This decision is unlawful because you have failed to cite the vexatious court precedent which you have relied upon to reach your
vexatious decision notice. As your are aware, the GIA/3037/2011
Dransfield v ICO is the UK's leading vexatious court authority.
This Decision Notice is therefore null and void and will
need to rescheduled. I wonder if such mistake are commonplace because the
ICO does not operate any ISO 9000 series, or is it because they consider themselves
above the law?
Alan M Dransfield
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, April 20, 2017 19:22:43
Vexatious to question London Legacy about a work-related death.
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Mon, April 17, 2017 08:59:51
Email sent - Mon 17/04/2017 08:40
Information Commissioners Office
This is the first time in five years the Information Commissioner's Office has reached a
correct, non-vexatious decision. I refer to the following ICO
decision which has refused a vexatious decision from Camden
Council. Oh my God, wonders will never cease.
In respect of this particular
Decision Notice, the ICO has been seen to doing the job properly and
professionally by overturning Camden CC vexatious decision.
Does this mean the ICO is now
prepared to hold a forensic investigation into the 6,000 wrongful vexatious
decisions based on the Dransfield GIA/3037/2011?
I wonder why the Information
Commissioner has suddenly decided to apply common law and common sense to this
Vexatious claptrap from the Camden Council.
Whilst this is a step in the right direction, it is too little
too late, as I will not change my mind that the ICO is rotten to the core .........
Alan M Dransfieldhttps://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013905/fer0637810.pdf