Stockport Council News

These documents can be more clearly read at – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/traffic.html

I said the traffic situation being created around the Vale View School would be highly dangerous. Majothi reported me to the Information Commissioner as being “vexatious”.

Within weeks of the school opening the Police had complained to the Council about… you guessed it … the dangerous traffic situation.

Have Majothi or his line manager, Adrian Moores, apologised to me for this very public blacking of my character and damage to my reputation as a campaigner? Have they Buxton!

Under the Defamation Act, Mr Majothi and Mr Moores need to make an offer to make amends to me. To say that I – a mother who lost her child in a road accident – am vexatious to have correctly raised these issues before and after the building of the school is so grotesque as to be off the scale in terms of defamation.

Dear Mr Parnell,

Thank you for your email.

I am afraid that I will not be investigating your complaint further, at this stage. You previously drew attention to video clips which appeared on a website involving you and two members of Council staff which I was not aware of until quite recently (as you know one Officer has since left the Council). I have been advised that the remaining Officer has already been warned in relation to his dealings with you during the period relating to when the video footage appears to have been shot. I therefore see no purpose in investigating your complaint further, unless you have further video footage which I would be happy to review. You may recall that I have already asked you for further information, which has thus far not been forthcoming.

Anwar Majothi
Corporate Complaints Manager
Stopford House
Stockport Council
SK1 3XE

Tel: 0161 474 3182

Fax: 0161 474 4006

(Majothi said I had failed to provide evidence which I had already provided dozens of times. Mr Majothi and the truth are rarely on speaking terms – Sheila).

Mr Majothi

Re: reply to your email

Thank you for your prompt reply, your response does not grasp the issues that was submitted, your reply does not mention what is the main issue founding the grounds to my complaint Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’s DUTY OF CARE.

In addressing your reply in the first line you state that “I am afraid that I will not be investigating your complaint further, at this stage.” If this is a correct statement then could you correctly follow procedures and confirm the next course to take if a complainant is not in agreement with your findings (appeal or direction towards the local government ombudsman),

To my submission formally I present my representation, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has failed in its Duty of Care to protect me from harm when attending as a service customer at council service counters, the harm suffered is both physical injury and psychological trauma, (with reference to your reply one officer has since left the council, this doesn’t take away the councils liability, to the behaviour causing injury, and that the other officer has been warned in relation to his dealing with myself (M Parnell),
You state ” I therefore see no purpose in investigating your complaint further”, this representation is not a complaint about those officers behaviour but is to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’ liability to the injuries and trauma’s caused by the council’s officers while performing their council duties.

In representation to the failing of the Duty of Care, my application is made to an award for damages under Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’s Public Liability.

Michael Parnell