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
Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 29, 2018 08:18:24
Email sent - Thu 26/07/2018 20:17
Karla Bailey Lead Case Officer
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
person applying a right and proper mind could refuse my SAR under such
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.
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
Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, May 13, 2018 08:03:02
Email sent - Sat 12/05/2018 20:39
Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham
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.
Yours sincerelylan Dransfield
Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, March 25, 2018 08:27:27
Email sent - Sat 24/03/2018 22:58
FOIA REF CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA (CA)
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.
Alan M Dransfield
Information CommissionerPosted by Sheila Oliver Fri, March 02, 2018 18:17:20
Email sent - Fri 02/03/2018 08:52
Ms Elizabeth Denham
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.
Alan M Dransfieldhttp://www.anglianwater.co.uk/about-us/information-requests.aspx
Grenfell TowerPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, January 14, 2018 09:19:50
Email sent - 26/11/2017 13:43
Sir Martin More- Bick Chairman of the Public Inquiry
Mr Sadiq Khan MP and London Mayor
I have had more time to digest the Fire Risk Assessment
(FRA) written by Mr Carl C Stokes, not dated, not signed and not
approved. The FRA was compiled a few months before the cladding was
installed on the Grenfell Tower (GT).
This FRA does, in my view, support my claims the fire
at Grenfell Tower was foreseeable and preventable. It also supports my claims
the GT was unsafe and unfit for purpose owing to serious fire hazards based on the following irregularities:
1.The FRA did NOT include the apartment dwellings.
2. The apartment dwellings' front doors have not been
provisioned with fire doors.
3. No mention of the PVC gas main running vertically up the
4. Large area of the GT not covered by the FRA.
5. Stay Put Policy Precaution - Page 5.
6. Roof access door permanently locked.
7. No reliance on external rescue eg Fireman's Ladders - page
8. The Fire service will arrange the general evacuation - page 5.
9. General communal doors were only FD30 and should have
been FD 60.
10. Risk to Life TOLERABLE page 10.
11. Housekeeping non-existent
12. Storage of flammable material - paint, glue, white spirits etc not considered dangerous.
13. The Lifts CAN Be used in the event of a fire - Page 18.
14. 20th floor door always locked to the roof.
15. The FRA claimed the walls and ceiling were NOT in good
condition - page 21.
16. The FRA claims the emergency lighting for the
emergency escape routs were N/A - page 22.
17. FRA claims the street lighting would provide adequate coverage - page 27. What happens if the street lighting is switched
off at midnight?
18. No smoke alarms in dwellings - page 25
19. No portable fire fighting equipment - page 24.
20. No testing and maintenance of fire equipment - Page
21. No inspection of emergency escape route
lighting - Page 27
22. No inspection, testing or maintenance records kept.
23. No periodical inspection of any external
Eecape routes - Page 28
24. Fire Extinguishers condemned - Page 28
25. No fire training to residents.
At this juncture there is no amended updated FRA when the cladding refurbishment took place,and there is still no Interim Fire
Report. The Grenfell Tower was a CATASTROPHE waiting to happen, as are
dozen if not hundreds of other high rise buildings nationwide.
For your information, action and files.
FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog.
Alan M Dransfield