It will be interesting to see if the DCC refuse this FOIA request under section 14(1) VEXATIOUS because,I have met with the DCC Head of H&S Department in this VERY Building to discuss H&S issues within the DCC, plus exchanged several letters with their H&S Guru.
Therefore, it would not make any sense to me to refuse the above request under vexatious grounds.
What do you think Timmy Turner?

I think you are, Mr Dransfield, in all possible senses of the word, a sore loser.

How did you work that out then Timmy, I have only lost a couple of battles, the war continues on dear boy.

What event made you start fighting this war?

When I realised the DCC were circumventing the FOIA act via whimsical vexatious decisions which started back in 2005 when the Larfarge Cement company providing millions of tonnes of contaminated cement on numerous pubic funded project which the DCC NOW claim I was vexatious

Is it you lodging complaints about me?'

I have lodged complaints about your requests to What Do They Know in the past, but they ignored them. Unfortunately, the WDTK volunteers clearly believe that your relentless tide of time-wasting, vexatious requests are in keeping with the site's values. So, I can honestly say that whoever has complained about your current requests, it was not me.

When's your case at the Court of Appeal?

Thank you for your honesty Tim. Cearley, this website see my requests for what they are, benign and strait-forward and in the interests of Public Safety.

You will recall that the UT ruled GIA/3037/2011 was vexatious under section 14(1) based on the history and context of my FOIA request between Feb 2005 and May 2009.

Please take a look at FS50087446 dated June 06 and you will clearly see that ICO decision refusal was based on section 12, COSTS and the word vexatious was not even raised. Moreover and more importantly we also NOW know that the sought-after data WAS held electronically and NOT via a MOUNTAIN of paperwork as stated by the DCC.

I haven't received a date from the Court of Appeal yet and I somehow think the aforementioned ICO decision will lead to the arrest of the ICO Solicitor and Judge Wikeley and a few other from the DCC who are clearly conspiring to pervert the course of justice ref their GHOST DOCUMENTS.

In essence FS50087446 proves the HISTORY and CONTEXT of my FOIA were NOT VEXATIOUS. It also proves that the GIA/3037/2011 used a Statutory Cort Authority is UNSAFE and should be removed from the Statute Book.

Watch this space Timmy.

Just a couple of other small issues, which I would like to draw your attention to Timmy.
I have recently exposed two other Public Buildings in Exeter which are failing their duty of care ref Lightning Protection, they are :
1.RDE Hospital Building (Various)
2.The Met Office. (Their CEO is due to contact me shortly and HOPEFULLY before the next BIG thunderstorm??!!)

What you have failed to see Timmy is, there is a pattern of systemic failures by Public Authorities in Devon, who have been wilfully blind to such matters.
Even you must appreciate that, WHEN transparency,accountability and security is NOT seen to be working, it PROBABLY AINT WORKING.
Cast your mind back to the original concept behind the FOIA 2000, was it not to improve TAS??
Unfortunately, we NOW have a system where the FOIA Gaurdians ICO/UT have turned poacher as clearly seen in
GIA/3037/2011 &EA/2010/0152.

The UT are on record that this particular case (GIA)was a TEST CASE and it was complex.
I can't imagine what they think to it now as it is proving to be rather more of a Test Case that they first thought.
The appellants in the GIA /3037/2011 were NOT the Public Authority,i.e Devon County Council(DCC)it was no other than the ICO and the SOLE reason the ICO poured thousands of pounds of Taxpayers Money on this GIA case and subsequent EA/2010/0152 case was to PROTECT their cosy little relationship with PA's who wanted to continue
with their whimsical VEXATIOUS decisions.
In a nutshell Timmy, the ICO have turned poacher on my two cases.
You are the expert in such matters,hence can you tell me how many cases you have experience where the ICO has been the APPELLANT in cases to the Upper Tribunal.
This question is before the ICO via my FOIA request but I would still be interested in your thoughts on the ICO being the MAIN driver on such appeals.

Initially, the DCC didn't want to know and had been prepared to accept the FTT decision in my favour which overturned the DCC/ICO vexatious decision.
The sole reason the ICO are throwing the kitchen sink at my two cases is to protect Rogue PA who wish to use section 14 Vexatious decisions.
In essence, the ICO held a gun to the head of the DCC and said YOU WILL BE A "JOINED PARTY".

Had I obtained a victory at the UT on GIA/3037/2011 then vexatious decisions would become as rare as rockinghorse KAKA AND the ICO/UT KNEW IT.

When is your Court of Appeal case?

"can you tell me how many cases you have experience where the ICO has been the APPELLANT in cases to the Upper Tribunal"

Five, in addition to yours. HTH

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?...
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?...
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?...
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?...
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?...

Breaking news in the Exeter Express and Echo is that all six(6) PFI schools in Exeter have banned the consumption of the schools drinking water and providing them with Bottled water because of HIGH levels of Water Contamination, zink.

One of the schools has had such problems since 2004 when it was commissioned.
No rush then??!!

The fact I have had a 90 min meeting with the DCC H&S Guru ref various H&S issues around Exeter and she has corresponded with me on such matters would make it nearly impossible to refuse any FOIA on vexatious grounds.
Also ,in light of the recent DCC Policy U Turn on vexatious decisions I think we will shortly have another vexatious U-turn .

As always, can't wait to read Tooltime Timmy Turners expert views.I don't think so Tim.

Have you read the Information Commissioner's new guidance on vexatious requests, published this week? The one where they use your failed case at the Upper Tribunal to widen their definition what constitutes a vexatious request? This is not my opinion, it's there on their website in black and white. Read it. This is your legacy - more requests (including more of yours) will be refused as vexatious because of the ICO's new guidance.

When is your court of appeal case?

Timmy

I am fully aware of the Case in which you refer Timmy, GIA/3037/2011.That,s the one they made on the back of the 13 Ghost Documents and the same one that the DCC/ICO claimed the Rugby Bridge had been provisioned with the "STATE OF THE ART LIGHTNING PROTECTION" which also turned out to be "GHOST LIGHTNING".
You appear to be getting V excited about the NEW GUIDANCE from Judge Wikeley,which at best is Nonsense and at worst part of a wider conspiracy to pervert the Course of Justice,I suggest the latter.
You are right about my legacy Timmy but rest assured that Legacy will be removed from the Statute Book.

Read what I said again. The guidance I am talking about did not come from the Upper Tribunal. It came from the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner has revised his guidance based on the Upper Tribunal, making clear that it is easier to refuse vexatious requests because of the Upper Tribunal. Hundreds of public authorities will follow that guidance, including the ones who deal with you. Your legacy is more requests being refused.

By the way, the 'Statute Book' does not include court or tribunal cases. The phrase refers to laws passed by Parliament. You might want to get details like that correct when you go to the Court of Appeal.

Indeed,you are correct Timmy and at this juncture the ICO and other rogue PA's can continue to pass down vexatious decisions with impunity but hopefully that will all change after my Court of Appeal or after the UT President investigates the conduct of Judge Wikeley, whichever comes first.
Don't forget also Timmy that this "NEW" ICO Guidance was ALL based on my GIA/3037/2011,i.e the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge (ECRB)and in particular the Lightning Protection System(LPS) which ALL parties claimed HAD been provisioned with LPS.
This is the KICKER Timmy, the DCC published the Operation Maintenance Manual(OMM) for the ECRB only 3 weeks ago which proves beyond a shadow of doubt the ECRB has NOT (repeat NOT) been provisioned with any LPS or indeed any Lightning Risk Assessment(LRS) thus making it impossible to apply section 14 vexatious to my FOIA.
If you think that Judge Wikeley had no input with this latest ICO guidance, dream on Tooltime Tim.
This was compounded even further because we now know the GIA/3037/2011 was based on 13 Ghost FOIA requests from me and it now transpire the ECRB has GHOST LPS&LRA.
You are obviously a Ghost Believer Timmy??

This is the SAME ICO who failed to search the home of Ian Kerr the brains behind the Construction Blacklisting debacle.
Some FOIA Campainger you turned out to be Timmy.
My legacy will be a real David V Goliath story, you best get back to the wine Bar Timmy for some more A/L.

Another ? for you Timmy.

Do you think is right and proper for a 1000+pupil school to operate for nearly 8 years without Basic Drinking water?