16th November 2025
Statement From a Concerned Council Taxpayer
I am a long-standing council taxpayer with a genuine and reasonable interest in how my local authority performs its duties. My questions and concerns have always been raised in good faith, motivated by a desire to see public money managed responsibly, public buildings maintained safely, and decisions taken transparently.
As a resident, I believe it is not only my right but my responsibility to ask questions when something appears unclear, inconsistent, or potentially unsafe—particularly when it involves issues such as school maintenance, asbestos management, financial discrepancies, risk assessments, or the wellbeing of vulnerable residents.
I reject any suggestion that raising these matters constitutes vexatious behaviour.
A vexatious person seeks to harass or obstruct; I seek to understand, clarify, and safeguard the community.
My approach has always been rooted in:
- Public interest – ensuring that the council meets its legal and moral obligations.
- Accountability – checking that decisions are justified and evidence-based.
- Transparency – asking for information that should be accessible to all residents.
- Safety – highlighting issues where neglect could have serious consequences.
- Civic duty – participating in local democracy, as encouraged by law.
If questions are persistent, it is only because the concerns remain unresolved.
If they are detailed, it is because the matters are serious.
If they are uncomfortable, it is because accountability sometimes is.
Labelling a resident as “vexatious” for engaging with legitimate public concerns risks discouraging civic participation and undermining trust between the council and the people it serves. My intention has never been to hinder the council, but to ensure that it operates to the highest standards for the benefit of all.
I remain committed to constructive dialogue, evidence-based discussion, and the fair treatment of all residents who seek clarity from their local authority.
Sent Fri 14/08/2009 20:10
Dear Ms Wallbank
Please see below from the Executive Councillor, Councillor Weldon at Stockport Council.
This is regarding a freedom of information request I made. There was a court case in April 2009 regarding the death of a pensioner. The Council had failed to carry out necessary maintenance at a council building and 62 others, the lady fell and subsequently died. The Council told the Court that it had a budget deficit, and although the Council received a large fine, the judge implied it would have been larger had it not been for the budget deficit. This is the news story:-
http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/1111053_council_fined_23000_for_safety_failings_at_pavilion
I asked about this budget deficit under the FOIA, as I attend a lot of council meetings and I had heard nothing about it – in fact, the Council had stated it had £5,000,000 put away for a rainy day. The reply came back that there was no budget deficit. This reply didn’t make sense because the Council had quite clearly been given a smaller court fine purely because of this deficit. I told the FOI Officer that the head of the relevant council directorate would know what I was talking about and asked for further details. I received no reply. I told Councillor Weldon that I wasn’t getting replies to FOI questions such as in this instance, which led to the ongoing tirade below.
My position is that I was perfectly right to ask about the budget deficit (apparently the Council’s barrister misunderstood his brief – well, maybe we can suspend disbelief on that one), but I feel I was perfectly entitled to ask for further clarification. If the Council states in court in a very serious case regarding the untimely death of a pensioner that it would have trouble paying the fine because of budget difficulties and that is reported in our award winning and truthful local newspaper, I think I am perfectly entitled to believe what was written and question further without being subjected to abuse as dished out below.
This is how Councillor Weldon speaks to me in public meetings too. Frankly, I have had enough.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: “Cllr Mark Weldon” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>
To: “Sheila Oliver” <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Third copy of response to your request
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Dig as much as you like, it is all in your imagination.
I note that if you get a response that does not fit in with your assumptions and flatly contradicts your statements you treat it as if it did not exist. This email is the third response on this request from the FoI officer and yet you publicised it to many third parties as if you had not received a response.
To avoid any doubt, I will quote the response;
“I understand that there is no such deficit; therefore no notification was needed. “
No “blackhole”, no, “financial irregularities”, just one over heated imagination. To continue to maintain otherwise is to deliberately foster an untruth.
Sincerely
Mark Weldon
Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone.
—–Original Message—–
From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: 12 August 2009 19:49
To: Cllr Mark Weldon <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Third copy of response to your request
Digging deeper, Councillor Weldon, digging deeper.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: Cllr Mark Weldon <mailto:cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>
To: Sheila Oliver <mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:58 PM
Subject: FW: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Third copy of response to your request
Mrs Oliver,
Again I note the request was dealt with and answered. To receive a response you do not like or agree with is different to not receiving a response.
Therefore to say it was not answered is untrue. If the untruth was deliberate it would be a lie. The code of conduct in my public duties requires me to assume you just did not understand you had previously received an answer. Others not constrained by the code could make up their own minds.
Moreover one of definitions of a vexatious line of questions is that they are repeated when perfectly adequate responses are given.
________________________________
From: Claire Naven on behalf of FOI Officer
Sent: Wed 12/08/2009 17:53
To: ‘Sheila Oliver’
Cc: FOI Officer
Subject: RE: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Third copy of response to your request
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your email below and your additional email sent
on the same date about the same subject (attached for reference).
The response to this request has been sent to you twice already; you also
replied to the email which had the second copy of the response attached to
it. All these emails are attached for your information; therefore please
update your records to show that a response to this request has been sent to
you on more than one occasion. In light of this, further emails stating that
this request has not received a response will be placed on file unanswered.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
________________________________
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 09 August 2009 07:25
To: FOI Officer
Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk; Cllr Mark Weldon
Subject: Fw: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Response
Dear Ms Naven
Could I have a reply to this please. I shall cc this to Councillor Weldon
who believes all FoI requests are answered by the Council and the
Information Commission.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: Sheila Oliver <mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
To: FOI Officer <mailto:foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Response
Dear Ms Navern
I assume there exists somewhere at the Council a written explanation of why
the maintenance wasn’t carried out, which may have led to the death of the
pensioner in Reddish, due to the absestos in schools issue. Please may I
have a copy.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: FOI Officer <mailto:foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>
To: Sheila Oliver <mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Cc: FOI Officer <mailto:foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1920).
I understand that there is no such deficit; therefore no notification was
needed.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are
entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried
out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original
request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk
in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled
to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk <http://www.ico.gov.uk/>
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
________________________________
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 18 June 2009 11:13
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Acknowledgement
Dear Ms Naven
Again, many thanks.
Kind regards
Sheila
—– Original Message —–
From: FOI Officer <mailto:foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>
To: Sheila Oliver <mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Cc: FOI Officer <mailto:foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref
1920 – Acknowledgement
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given
reference FOI 1920. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your
request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If
there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to
provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if
you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount
to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
________________________________
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 06 June 2009 08:37
To: FOI Officer
Cc: peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk; Andrew Webb; Steve Houston
Subject: £5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue
Dear FoI Officer
I note from the Council’s own Financial Management document that: “Corporate
Directors shall notify the Corporate Director, Business Services, as soon as
possible of any matter within their area of responsibility which may affect
the financial position of the Council.”
At what point was the Corporate Director, Business Services, notified of the
£5.6 million deficit in the CYPD budget for dealing with asbestos in
schools, which may have indirectly led to the death of a pensioner? I
certainly noticed no mention of it in any council meeting I have attended,
I am concerned there has been a cover-up over anomalies of several millions
of pounds within this same CYPD on another matter, so these are serious
issues.
I am also concerned that Mr. Andrew Webb has so many other professional
irons in the fire that he is not dedicating the time he should (or that I
pay him a lot of money to do) to his primary employment.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Sheila
**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March
2009.
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose
this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act
2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in
the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business
Services via email.query@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it
from your system.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.77/2184 – Release Date: 06/17/09
17:55:00
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.94/2207 – Release Date: 06/28/09
17:54:00
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 – Release Date: 08/12/09
06:09:00
——————————————————————————–
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 – Release Date: 08/12/09
06:09:00
