Alan Dransfield's Blog

Alan Dransfield's Blog

Freedom of Information and Health and Safety

This blog is aimed at shaming those who ignore health and safety and those who abuse the Freedom of Information Act out of laziness, corruption or to cover up incompetence.

Is Ben Bradshaw MP a waste of space?

Ben Bradshaw MPPosted by Sheila Oliver Sat, August 25, 2018 19:10:09

  • Comments(0)//

Carillion and the 6 PFI schools - not vexatious at all

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 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

  • Comments(0)//

What you get if you ask the ICO about Grenfell Tower

VexatiousPosted 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

  • Comments(0)//

Yet further illegal action by the Information Commissioner

Information CommissionerPosted 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

  • Comments(0)//

More dodgy goings on from the ICO

Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, May 13, 2018 08:03:02
Email sent - Sat 12/05/2018 20:39

Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham

Dear Madam

As you are aware, the ICO have instructed court bailiffs to recover nearly £4000 legal costs in connection with The Court of Appeal Case C3/1855/ 15th May, Dransfield v ICO.

Are you not aware that a public authority cannot use taxpayers money to seek legal redress?

Therefore, please advise your bailiffs to cease and desist harassing me for such legal costs.

I will take this opportunity in submitting a FOIA request to the ICO for all cases in which the ICO have pursued legal costs against any FOIA complainant/requester since Jan 2013.

with thanks

Yours sincerelylan Dransfield

  • Comments(0)//

Vexatious to ask about too lenient sentences

Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Fri, April 06, 2018 18:34:00

  • Comments(0)//

Cambridge Analytica

Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, March 25, 2018 08:27:27
Email sent - Sat 24/03/2018 22:58

Elizabeth Denham


Dear Madam

Under protection of the FOIA please provide me with the following information ref the subject title.

1.A copy of the ICO application for the warrant.

2.A copy of the Warrant to search CA.

3.A copy of the Method Statement for the raid

4.A copy of the Risk Assessment for the raid.

5.A copy of the invoice for the combat ICO jackets.

6.A full list of all items confiscated.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

  • Comments(0)//

Anglian Water

Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Fri, March 02, 2018 18:17:20

Email sent - Fri 02/03/2018 08:52

Ms Elizabeth Denham

Information Commissioner

Dear Madam

Please see the following statement from the Anglian Water Authority, who claims they have no liability for the FOIA 2000.

Such statements are, at best, misinformation and at worst published to circumvent the FOIA 2000. It beggars belief the Anglian Water Authority would publish this statement on their website. To my knowledge all the other water companies are in full compliance with the FOIA 2000. I expect the ICO to issue a heavy fine against the Anglian Water Authority for their willful breach of Section 77 of the said act. Quite frankly, I think the conduct of their CEO Peter Simpson is reprehensible.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

  • Comments(0)//
« PreviousNext »