Stockport Council News

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a

representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it

(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device

designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without

human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Email sent – 11 September 2009 07:40

Dear Mr Majothi

I note you have failed to respond to me regarding the details of financial irregularities involving several millions of pounds. Under the Council’s own fraud and financial irregularities policies and under the Fraud Act 2006, the Council must disclose all documents regarding the finance of this issue. The time of the Information Commission is again being wasted by this Council in its refusal to comply both with the law and its own policies.

Your failure to disclose these documents will be brought to the attention of the Audit Commission.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Freedom of Information Campaigner, Stockport

Email sent – 04 September 2009 07:27

c.c. Goddard, Candler, Weldon, Khan, Schulz

Dear Mr Majothi

I note from last night’s full council meeting (3/9/09) that the Council is still refusing to comply with its own fraud and irregularities policies and the Fraud Act 2006. I asked for documents to be disclosed with regards to the financial anomalies of several million pounds regarding Harcourt Street, including a presumed miscalculation of over a quarter of a millon pounds in the explanation to the Executive Committee of the massive rise in costs of this scheme.

The Council is continuing to fail to comply with the law and its own policies. I shall draw this latest transgression to the attention of the Audit Commission and the Standards Board.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

FOIC Stockport

This document can be more clearly read here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/contamination.htmlAgain, Majothi deemed it “vexatious” of me to have pointed out they had not carried out enough contamination investigation points. When they were finally forced to do so, kicking and screaming, the entire site was found to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. Had they done the job correctly in the first place, they would have found the contamination, as I stated quite correctly to Majothi. Has the defamatory labelling of me as “vexatious” been lifted? Has it ‘eck as like! Majothi is not a fit person to hold public office.

Were the above not bad enough, in the Risk Register the Council is worried they don’t have enough money to deal with the drainage on the site. Have a look at the photos in the link below taken mid September 2013 and see if you think they dealt with the complex drainage problems properly. I am still “vexatious” for questioning this matter

http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=336

Email sent – 23 August 2009 14:06

Dear Mr Majothi

Attached is the Harcourt Street Risk Register – the last one I was allowed to see before the strange ban was put back in place. You will see the high risk of costs and delay (in red) presented by the issue of drainage and contamination remediation.

I asked under the FOIA the estimated drainage and contamination remediation costs, to be told they were impossible to work out at that point. A short time later those figures were put before the Executive Meeting. I asked to see how those figures were arrived at. This was, of course, refused under the strange ban imposed.

What is worrying – especially post Corby – is that not one contamination pit was dug over the proposed site of the school, which is directly over the old tip intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974. The Council states it has complied with BS10175 in regards to this. It hasn’t!

Have the contamination remediation costs been properly worked out or was the figure put before the Executive for drainage and contamination remediation (which could cost millions) merely plucked out of thin air?

I look forward to hearing your comments

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

Majothi deems it “vexatious” of me to my objecting to being publicly called a liar by Goddard, then Leader of the Council. They can’t call each other liars, so why was he allowed to call me a liar? He never provided any evidence that I have lied, despite several requests. Also, why was it “vexatious” of me to point out that a Data Protection offence had been committed by posting up my name, address and signature on the Council’s website? Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy!

Email sent – 23 August 2009 13:27

Dear Mr Majothi

The Council has not complied with the Acceptable Use Policy with regards to myself.

I have been called a liar, rude and offensive and generally spoken to in public meetings as if I were a piece of dirt. I believe some emails (if not all) were centrally monitored, yet the Council has stated that it does not centrally monitor emails. It is an offence to tell lies under the FOIA.

I have had my personal details and signature put up on the Council’s website for months. When the Council was informed of this fact it did nothing to remove those details and was in contravention of the Data Protection Act.

I shall be pursuing this matter with the Council’s insurers. If I am further declared vexatious on 1st September, when I have been trying time after time for well over 18 months to draw the Council’s attention to financial irregularities and the Council has been guilty of maladministration, then that makes my case even stronger. We will see what the Audit Commission has to say regarding what has gone on.

Please may I have your comments.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

Under the above-named Council policy, when I provided evidence to councillors and senior council officers of multi-million pound financial irregularities, they had to act. They didn’t, merely banning me as “vexatious”. Dodgy dealing in LibDem for a decade Stockport seems to be de rigeur.

The Executive Councillors and senior council officers copied in to this email were – Cllr Mark Weldon, Barry Khan, Council Solicitor, John Schulz, then Chief Exec, Cllr Martin Candler and Martin Warburton of the Information Commissioner’s Office. In banning me as “vexatious” for raising these issues, Majothi was himself commiting an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

Email sent – 23 August 2009 15:14

Dear Mr Majothi

As I understand it the Council’s Fraud and Irregularity Response Procedure states:-

2. Definition

2.1 Fraud is defined within the Fraud Act 2006 as:

“Activity aimed at securing a gain, causing a loss or exposing somebody to a risk of loss, through false representation, failing to disclose information or through abuse of position.”

2.2 Crucially, under the new Fraud Act no gain or loss actually has to happen for a fraud to occur, the act of fraud is entirely defined by the actions or intent of the individual.

2.3 For the purposes of this procedure, the term fraud will be used to cover both fraud and corruption and may also encompass other irregularities.

I note the procedure goes on to list what further action the Council has to take in these circumstances.

I look forward to receiving your comments regarding the above and the action you propose to take regarding the information I have sent you and the further information I have yet to send.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

This document can be more clearly read here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/how-did-it-pass-planning-.htmlWhy did Majothi, a man involved 100% in the vicious harassment of Mr Parnell, consider this query “vexatious”?

Email sent – 23 August 2009 20:3

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached. The Council can’t pretend to have any public support when they talk of the “public hostility”. And that caused more worries over the financial impact of the scheme. When I asked questions regarding the CPO, I was banned from having any information. A further cover-up, one would have to assume. Why, then wasn’t the Fir Tree site given reasonable consideration instead?

Yours

Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

No concern for safety – just for pushing through corruption in planning. For the record, as far as I am able to ascertain, they are not monitoring the dangerous landfill gases.

Email sent – 30 August 2009 19:27

Dear Mr Majothi

How much will the expert monitoring of the gas venting systems in the proposed school and playground cost over the 25 year lifetime of this school? Or, won’t the Council bother?

Kind regards

Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner