Alan Dransfield's Blog

Oh, Mr Sowerbutts!Information Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Wed, January 09, 2019 19:43:57

Health and Safety Executive letterOlympic Stadium

Posted by Sheila Oliver Tue, November 20, 2018 18:48:43

Blog image
This document can be more clearly read via this link:

Freedom of Information doesn't work in the UKInformation Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Sun, November 11, 2018 19:58:14

Was there scrutiny of this change?Information Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Mon, September 03, 2018 19:14:31

Email sent - Mon 03/09/2018 10:54

Information Commissioners Office

Dear Madam

Under protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with copies of the following

1. All correspondence between the ICO and David Lidington ref the recent changes to sect 45 of FOIA

2. Records of all phone calls, meetings etc and personal notes from Ms Denham to the Queen on same subject.

3. Copies of all correspondence from your office pertaining to sect 45 changes and responses from the Cabinet Office. This request is neither vexatious, wide or unfocused.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Is Ben Bradshaw MP a waste of space?Ben Bradshaw MP

Posted by Sheila Oliver Sat, August 25, 2018 19:10:09

Carillion and the 6 PFI schools - not vexatious at allVexatious

Posted 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 Charles

Dear Sir

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.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

What you get if you ask the ICO about Grenfell TowerVexatious

Posted by Sheila Oliver Thu, August 16, 2018 05:36:41

From: <>
Date: 15 August 2018 at 10:09:17 BST
To: <>

Subject: Complaint to ICO re: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea[Ref. FS50772688]

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 information request.

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.

Yours sincerely

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Yet further illegal action by the Information CommissionerInformation Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 29, 2018 08:18:24

Email sent - Thu 26/07/2018 20:17

Attn Karla Bailey Lead Case Officer

Dear Madam

I now wish to elevate my complaint to the next level of the ICO complaints procedure, as I fervently believe the ICO have breached my Information rights by refusing my Subject Access Request ( SAR) on grounds my request is Manifestly Unreasonable.

No person applying a right and proper mind could refuse my SAR under such exemptions.

As you are aware, the ICO has consistently refused my FOI requests under section 14/1 vexatious exemption and now for the first time my SAR has been refused. It is consistently obvious to me that ICO senior managers including Elizabeth Denham are acting in concert to harass me. At best, your refusal decision is a Wednesbury Principled decision, and at worst, a decision to pervert the course of justice. I suggest the latter.

In the event I have not received a response to this letter within 14 days, I intend to pursue a private prosecution commencing at Chester Magistrate Court under protection of The Fraud Act 2006 and the Data Act 98

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield