Dear Sir/Madam,
I write further to the forthcoming hearing listed for 30 September 2025 in the above matter.
I wish to place on record my serious concern that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has repeatedly failed to process my Subject Access Requests (SARs) lawfully. Despite my clear statutory rights under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, the ICO has:
- Refused or ignored multiple SARs made by me, without proper legal justification.
- Relied on Article 12(5)(b) (“manifestly unfounded or excessive”) as a blanket ground to deny access, without evidence.
- Imposed an email ban against me, thereby obstructing my ability to exercise my rights and to correspond in an accessible and proportionate manner.
- It is apparent Richard Bailey is knowingly and wilfully breaching section 77 of the said act.
These failures are directly relevant to the fairness of the upcoming Upper Tribunal hearing.
By withholding my personal data, the ICO is denying me the opportunity to review material that may support my case or undermine theirs.
Ditto for their lifetime email ban against me.
This situation amounts to a breach of the principle of equality of arms, as protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and risks prejudicing the Tribunal’s ability to conduct a fair hearing.
I respectfully ask that the Tribunal takes note of this procedural unfairness and considers whether directions are appropriate to ensure compliance by the ICO with my information rights in advance of the hearing.
At this Juncture I would have expected:
A.Full Bundle.
B_Witness statements
C. Case Management Direction (CMD)
I fervently believe there is primafacia evidence at the ICO and UT database of gross obfuscation and maladministration by thevUT and ICO. This case has been running for six years now. Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations against the ICO and UT the gravity of my assertions behoves the UT To ensure the doctrine of equality of arms is foremost.
I am trying to avoid another adjournment which is compacted on public funds.
Finally I respectfully request that Judge Willy should recuse himself from this hearing owing to his obvious obesssiion to defraud my legal argument vehicle. I agree with Dr Reuben Kirkham that Judge Jacob’s should be assigned to the Hearing on 30/9/25
Yours faithfully,
Mr Alan M. Dransfield
Third-Party Intervenor
Wirral In It Together 