Stockport Council News

Email sent – August 23, 2009 1:44 PM

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached. As if all I had outlined previously hadn’t been bad enough, we now learn that although £6.9 million for this school is to come from the sale of redundant school land, due to the economic downturn the sale of these assets is not proceeding as it should. I have asked for background details – but everything has to be kept secret and I am vexatious for even asking.

I look forward to your comments

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

This document can be more clearly read here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

As usual, Majothi is part of the problem and never presents the solution.

Email sent – September 02, 2009 6:50 AM

Subject: Appeal against being declared vexatious with knobs on

Dear Mr Majothi

It was stated at last night’s Executive Committee how fair the proposed Vexatious with Knobs on policy was to be. In the light of that I wish to appeal, due to the fact that Khan, Weldon, Schulz, Webb, Scullion, Candler, Goddard and Sager failed to comply with the Council’s policy on fraud and financial irregularities for well over 18 months, putting me to considerable effort and leading me to be branded a liar, rude, offensive and vexatious, which is defamatory.

In the light of all the evidence I have sent you I expect and answer, which will be sent to the Standards Board and the Audit Commission. If I don’t get any repsonse within a reasonable time that will be pointed out too. We can’t wait a decade for a reply as has happened in the past.

I look forward to hearing from you

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

In the early 1980s I believe the land at Mill Lane/Harcourt Street, Barlow Fold was in the town plan as public open space. Housing was built on the site following a meeting held behind closed doors involving one senior council officer and one senior councillor. Greater Manchester Council did not approve the use of this land for housing and I believe no consultation was held with local people concerning the change of designation as housing land. Greater Manchester Council was very annoyed at this.

I asked a FOIA question regarding this and the information was not disclosed to me. I mentioned the question of possible corruption, as I recall, and I wanted access to the documents myself to check. It would appear that in those circumstances the Council should have disclosed those documents under its Fraud policy.

Apparently the formal adoption procedure had not been applied to the local plan.

The above document can be more clearly read here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/how-did-it-pass-planning-.html

From the attached the “obvious concern over funding” expressed in March 2007 (when the cost was about £5 million cheaper than it turned out to be) and “advice required on how much of this goes in the highlight report” So, was Donna Sager, Project Manager, seeking to hide the massive financial problems from the Project Board? I think so.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html
This document can be more clearly read using the above link.

From the Harcourt Street Highlight report for period 15/3/06 – 14/05/06

“Aspirations continue to exceed budget provision and at this stage the scheme is undeliverable if the funding (or Brief) is not revisited.”

Highlight report for period 15/3/06 – 14/5/06

“Funding shortfall will lead to ultimate project failure if not addressed i.e., unable to enter into contract”. This was when the cost was circa £8.6 million – it is now circa £10 million.

From the Fir Tree Consultation with Governors 06/07/05

“There was concern from the governors that families in the Fir Tree area will have difficulty in getting to the proposed new site. The governors felt the outreach work would need to be increased as they felt parents from the school would not walk to the new facilities. The governors supports a new school but would wish the site to be in the Fir Tree community”

How much has the outreach work been costed at?

Email sent – 02 September 2009 07:58

Dear Mr Majothi

Last night Goddard said I should have reported the financial irregularities and they couldn’t answer them if they didn’t know what they were.

I asked a council question in February 2008 and he promised me a reply over the financial anomalies. When I had not received a reply by July I wrote to Scullion. When by November I had heard nothing I sent a registered post reminder to Khan. When I got no acknowledgement from him I again asked Goddard in the full Council meeting and he promised me a response. When I had heard nothing by February 2009 I again asked Goddard in a full council meeting and he told me I would never be given an answer. I have sent hundreds possibly of reminders, which no doubt has led to my being branded now Vexatious With Knobs On. Your comments please before I take this to the Standards Board regarding Goddard and Weldon.

Also, please send me the advice the Council claims to have received from the LGO regarding vexatious council taxpayers. I am asking this under the FOIA.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

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