Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Information Commissioner’s Office — request for DSIT scrutiny of the Dransfield vexatious precedent and ICO governance

I write further to recent public reports that the Information Commissioner, John Edwards, has voluntarily stepped aside from his duties at the Information Commissioner’s Office while an independent workplace / HR investigation relating to him is undertaken.

I make no allegation regarding the substance of that HR matter. However, I understand that the investigation will produce a report with recommendations for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to decide next steps. In those circumstances, I respectfully submit that DSIT should also consider the wider governance, accountability, and public confidence issues arising from the ICO’s conduct in information rights cases.

In particular, I request that DSIT include within its scrutiny an investigation into the continuing use and consequences of the Dransfield vexatious precedent, arising from Dransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council, Upper Tribunal reference GIA/3037/2011.

This case has had profound and continuing consequences for citizens exercising their rights under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and related information rights regimes. In my view, the precedent has been misused by public authorities and the ICO as a convenient mechanism to avoid disclosure, suppress legitimate scrutiny, and label persistent requesters as “vexatious” rather than addressing the substance of their public interest concerns.

My own position is that the Dransfield case was built on serious procedural unfairness, flawed reasoning, and a failure to properly consider the public value of the original request. The original issue concerned public safety and lightning protection in relation to a public pedestrian bridge in Exeter. That request was later shown to have genuine public interest value. Despite this, the “Dransfield vexatious” label has continued to be used widely against me and others.

I respectfully ask DSIT to consider the following matters:

1. Whether the ICO has used the Dransfield precedent fairly, proportionately, and lawfully.

2. Whether the ICO has allowed Section 14(1) FOIA to become a de facto blanket-ban mechanism against certain citizens.

3. Whether the ICO’s reliance on “vexatious” reasoning has undermined access to justice and the right to seek information from public authorities.

4. Whether the ICO has properly distinguished between genuinely abusive requests and persistent but legitimate requests raising public interest, safety, environmental, legal, or governance concerns.

5. Whether the ICO’s own handling of complaints involving me, including its reliance on refusal mechanisms and non-response positions, demonstrates wider governance failure.

6. Whether DSIT should commission an independent review of the Dransfield precedent, its application by the ICO, and its impact on citizens’ rights.

The ICO is not merely an ordinary public authority. It is the statutory regulator responsible for protecting information rights. It therefore carries a higher duty of candour, fairness, transparency, and institutional integrity. If the ICO itself is under governance scrutiny, then DSIT should not limit its attention solely to internal HR matters. It should also examine whether the ICO’s regulatory culture has failed the public.

I also draw attention to my concern that the ICO has repeatedly failed to provide clear, accountable, and transparent decision-making in matters involving me, including delayed correspondence, unclear appeal or review routes, refusal to respond further, and the apparent use of internal correspondence restrictions. These matters are not isolated complaints. They form part of a long-running pattern that, in my view, requires external scrutiny.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking DSIT to interfere with individual tribunal proceedings. I am asking DSIT, as the sponsoring department, to consider whether the ICO’s governance, culture, and use of the Dransfield vexatious precedent now require independent review in the public interest.

I respectfully request that DSIT confirms:

1. whether the Department will consider the Dransfield vexatious precedent as part of its wider scrutiny of ICO governance;

2. whether DSIT will examine the ICO’s use of Section 14(1) FOIA and related refusal mechanisms;

3. whether DSIT will consider commissioning or recommending an independent review of the ICO’s application of the Dransfield precedent;

4. whether my correspondence and evidence may be placed before the appropriate DSIT official or review team dealing with ICO governance matters.

I would be grateful if this letter could be acknowledged and placed on the relevant DSIT file concerning ICO governance and oversight.

Yours faithfully,

Alan M Dransfield
alanmdransfield@gmail.com