———- Forwarded message ———
From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025, 10:06
Subject: ICO /FOI Fraud Maladministration
To: Speaker’s Office <speakersoffice@parliament.uk>, <speakerscommittee@parliament.uk>
Cc: <richard.tice@reformparty.uk>, Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk>, Adminappeals <adminappeals@justice.gov.uk>
Dear Mr Speaker,
Re: Systemic Misuse of FOIA Section 14(1) “Vexatious” – Urgent Parliamentary Attention Required
I write to you as a long-standing campaigner for transparency and accountability within public authorities, particularly concerning the systemic misuse of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This provision, which allows public authorities to reject requests they deem “vexatious,” has been widely and increasingly misapplied since the Court of Appeal ruling in Dransfield v Information Commissioner [2015] EWCA Civ 454.
That ruling—originally focused on a FOIA request regarding lightning protection on a public footbridge—has become a dangerous precedent. It is now routinely invoked to silence whistleblowers, journalists, campaigners, and ordinary members of the public who seek access to information in the public interest. The term “vexatious” has strayed far beyond its intended scope and is now weaponised by government departments, councils, and regulators to avoid transparency and accountability.
My own case is just one example. Despite raising genuine public safety concerns, I was branded vexatious and subsequently banned for life from contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office and the “WhatDoTheyKnow” platform. I am not alone. Numerous others—including Len Lawrence (a whistleblower pilot who exposed toxic cabin air) and the late Robert Pickthall (a corruption campaigner targeted by Stockport Council)—have also been silenced using the same legal mechanism.
Most recently, it has come to my attention that authorities such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Duchy of Cornwall, and even the Department for Work and Pensions are also citing “Dransfield” to reject FOI requests with no consideration of the public interest. This undermines public trust in both the FOIA framework and democratic accountability.
Given this escalating misuse, I respectfully urge you to:
Initiate a Speaker-led review or parliamentary debate into the current application of FOIA section 14(1), with a focus on the Dransfield precedent.
Consider referring the matter to the Justice Select Committee or Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC).
Encourage the Cabinet Office and Information Commissioner to issue revised guidance that ensures public interest remains central to FOI determinations.
Transparency is the cornerstone of our democracy. Parliament must act before more voices are unjustly silenced under the guise of “vexatiousness.”
Yours sincerely,
Alan M. Dransfield
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 