Stockport Council News

“The complainant has requested information about Fitness to Practice
Rule 17 (2g) successes at tribunal hearings. The General Medical Council
(‘GMC’) refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious
requests).”

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2023/4025331/ic-205938-y5m7.pdf

The complainant has requested information regarding any minutes
produced during a meeting between Sue Gray and Boris Johnson

2. On the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner has concluded that
   the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information.
3. No steps are required

MP Lisa Smart
Cllr Lisa Smart
Cllr Clarke
Cllr Roberts
34 Stockport Road
Romiley
Stockport
SK6 3AA

By recorded delivery

Wednesday, 18 July 2024

Dear All

Financial 2

This is the procedure you must all follow if a council taxpayer reports council wrongdoing to you.  You didn’t.

When a local councillor is made aware of financial irregularities, it is essential that they follow a structured and ethical approach to address the issue effectively and responsibly. Here are the steps a councillor should take:

1. Acknowledge the Concern

• Listen carefully to the individual reporting the irregularities and take detailed notes of the information provided.
• Thank the person for bringing the matter to their attention and assure them that the concern will be taken seriously.

2. Maintain Confidentiality

• Ensure that the identity of the whistleblower is protected to the extent possible, and reassure them about confidentiality.
• Avoid discussing the matter with anyone who does not need to know about it.

3. Gather Information

• Collect all relevant information and documentation related to the reported irregularities.
• Ask for specifics such as dates, amounts, involved parties, and any evidence the whistleblower might have.

4. Follow Procedures

• Refer to the council’s established policies and procedures for reporting and handling financial irregularities.
• Ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

5. Report Internally

• Report the issue to the appropriate internal body, such as the council’s internal audit department, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), or a designated fraud investigation team.
• If the council has a whistleblowing policy, follow the steps outlined in that policy.

6. Escalate if Necessary

• If the issue involves senior management or if internal reporting mechanisms are compromised, escalate the concern to higher authorities such as the council leader, the external auditor, or relevant regulatory bodies.

7. Monitor the Process

• Keep track of the progress of the investigation to ensure it is being handled appropriately.
• Request regular updates and ensure that the investigation is thorough and impartial.

8. Ensure Resolution

• Ensure that appropriate actions are taken based on the findings of the investigation.
• This may include disciplinary action, policy changes, or legal proceedings if necessary.

9. Protect the Whistleblower

• Make sure that the whistleblower is protected from retaliation or adverse consequences.
• Ensure they are kept informed about the general progress and outcome of the investigation, within confidentiality limits.

10. Review and Learn

• After the issue is resolved, review the process to identify any weaknesses in the council’s procedures that allowed the irregularities to occur.
• Work on implementing stronger controls and preventive measures to avoid future occurrences.

11. Public Communication

• Depending on the severity and public interest in the issue, consider how to communicate the outcome to the public while maintaining necessary confidentiality.
• Be transparent about steps taken to address the issue and prevent future irregularities.

Conclusion

Handling financial irregularities with integrity, transparency, and adherence to proper procedures is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring the effective functioning of the council. By following these steps, a local councillor can address the issue responsibly and help maintain ethical standards within the council.Bottom of Form

The Council Monitoring Officer, Bates, appears to have belatedly admitted that I was correct in identifying a circa £200k error in the council report. I have been trying very hard for 15 years to report this to all of you.  You all claimed I was being vexatious and rude and offensive.  The Information Commissioner decided I had never been rude or offensive and the Council holds no evidence that I ever had been.

The Vale View school went from £5.5m in October 2005 to £7.5m in December 2005 and then on to £10m a few months later.  This is before the contamination remediation costs were added after the Council was forced to acknowledge the site was entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.

I want to know the final cost of the school including remediation costs – and I have been asking constantly since 2011 but was illegally prevented from doing so.  I have been quoted a price of £1,400,000 for this sort of work on this sort of site. 

I will sort out corruption at Stockport Council however long it takes me.

Yours

Sheila Oliver

Email sent – Wed 10/12/2008 18:36

Dear Ms Naven

This is raising more questions than it answers.  What if the vexatious council taxpayer is proved to be right by external agencies?  Then she or he was correct to continue questioning and we have to acknowledge that people who have something to hide don’t want to be questioned about it.

Take me for example – as I point out to my husband I am always right.  I was right in that John Schulz had to publicly apologise to me in the Express, I was right in the Harcourt Street contamination was not carried out sufficiently – the Environment Agency have demanded more investigations.  I was right when I got 22 lorry loads of contaminated waste removed from the Trident Foams site.  The council had to apologise when they didn’t tell the Environment Agency until three days before the planning meeting about the school they are proposing to build on a still gassing toxic waste dump and I had a hand in exposing that, the Department for Children’s Schools and  Families laywers are worried that SMBC did not consider the human rights of local residents at Harcourt Street, which I pointed out, I will be shown to be right about the waste of millions of pounds at Harcourt Street and I have the backing of hundreds and hundreds of local people, as I have repeatedly shown. So you see, independent review by a senior council officer doesn’t really cut the mustard does it?

I look forward to your comments.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: sheilaoliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:23 PM

Subject: RE: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379 – Additional response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing further to your additional request for information below.

Please find attached the Council’s ‘Policy on unacceptable actions by complainants’. You may also find the information at the following link helpful:

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/09CC656B2B98A12A9905CAADA055ACAA

This takes you to ‘Getting the Best from Complaints – Social Care Complaints for Children, Young People and Others’. This is guidance which supports the Regulations governing children’s complaints and in Annexes 4 and 5, pages 45/49 it outlines actions that may be considered by Councils in dealing with persistent, unreasonably persistent complainants and on unacceptable behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 09 December 2008 21:40
To: FOI Officer
Cc: Peter Devine
Subject: Re: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379 – Response

Dear Ms Naven

Thanks for your reply.  We will ignore the housing people, but I appreciate they too might be simply trying to get through the brick wall of the Council’s complaints procedure.

I am a bit mystified as to how SMBC can have banned people from communicating with the Council and from entering all Council properties (excluding schools) if you don’t know who they are, or am I missing something here?

What I suspect is that over the decades SMBC has banned possibly hundreds of people with legitimate concerns and has never troubled to un-ban them.  Where this leaves SMBC with its current vexatious complaints protocol is anyone’s guess.  Could you send me a copy?  Many thanks if you can.

I need to have a big think about all this.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: sheilaoliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:43 PM

Subject: RE: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379 – Response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1379). I apologise for the delay.

You have not defined ‘…currently banned council taxpayers…’ in a way which enables us to respond fully to your request. We cannot comment on or make reference to any individual cases in our response. Information which relates to and identifies living individuals is personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998. The disclosure of personal data under these circumstances would be unfair and would contravene the first data protection principle; therefore it is exempt under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act).

Your subjective statement could clearly incorporate a large number of different circumstances for different people; therefore when considering your request, we have defined this as relating to instances where the Council:

o  has barred all forms of communication from an individual and banned them from all Council premises (excluding schools); or

o  has taken other action that might, for instance, allow conditional access to premises e.g. with prior arrangements/agreement with appropriate personnel but still continue to allow communication.

With the above in mind, our response is below:

There is no central Council ‘register’ of people who fall into the above categories. If we were to attempt to provide this information, it would involve substantial amounts of work and investigation to compile information in a format not currently held. If restrictions such as those above are in place, these are likely to be done on a case-by-case basis, the details of which will be contained within individual correspondence and/or complaint files. To provide this information would require every individual team and service to read through all files which may be relevant to see if any individual falls within the above category. This also means that any figure provided has the potential to be inaccurate. Such a substantial exercise is likely to exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 i.e. 18 hours’ work (s.12 FOI Act).

In addition to the above, the Council currently has six injunctions in force which ban people from Council buildings. These are all Housing injunctions where the conduct of an individual:

a. is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a specified person (resident of a housing estate/member of staff); and

b. directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord.

We are unable to provide any further information in relation to your request in its current form.

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

01625 545 745

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 04 November 2008 18:35
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379

Dear Ms Naven

Thanks for your reply.  I am happy to discuss how we deal with this one – I am always willing to oblige. 

For example, I presume people are banned because they present  a real danger to council employees and  maybe the fabric of buildings, and not simply because they are asking questions that might embarrass the Council.  So, there must be a list somewhere of currently banned people,  in case they turn up so the security staff can be vigilant.  There should be some system, in such a well-run council, of rescinding these bans – or  do they always last a lifetime?  I know, please let me see the written protocol for this.

Shall we say all currently banned council taxpayers who are prevented from entering council buildings in the way it was employed against – plucking a name at random – Mr. Parnell?  I am not interested in schools or colleges, as I can see there might be genuine reasons for banning people from them.

If we are talking about huge numbers here, I am happy to re-define my request.  If we are talking about huge numbers here, there is something very wrong.

Lots of love

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: sheilaoliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:43 PM

Subject: RE: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1379).

We are unable to respond to your request in its current form; however if you are able to refine your request we may be able to provide some relevant information. For example: How do you define ‘banned’? This could include those where the Council has withdrawn its permission for them to enter certain buildings; it could also include those who are excluded by the terms of an injunction or those who have entered into an undertaking not to enter Council buildings. Similarly, how do you define ‘Council building’? This could include civic buildings, Council offices, schools, housing offices etc. You have also not specified a time-period to which your request relates. Consequently, your request could incorporate a vast amount of records and circumstances which means we cannot answer it as it currently stands.

If you are able to refine your request, please do so. If we do not receive this clarification within 20 working days we will assume you no longer wish to proceed and will close your case.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 08 October 2008 20:35
To: FOI Officer

Subject: Banned council taxpayers

Dear Ms Naven

Please may I know under the FOIA how many council taxpayers have now been banned from council buildings by this Kafkaesque council?  I believe the lovely grandma with the autistic grandchild has been banned as well as Mr. Parnell.  Are there any more?

Lots of love

Sheila

**********************************************************************
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.

http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1765 – Release Date: 11/3/2008 4:59 PM

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1839 – Release Date: 12/9/2008 9:59 AM

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.16/1841 – Release Date: 12/10/2008 9:30 AM

Email sent – Tue 23/12/2008 19:52

Dear Mr Stunell

Thanks for your letter.  You must pray for me so that I lose my sarcastic streak.

It is interesting that you have had issues with The Banned at Stockport. The Council has absolutely no idea how many people it has banned (documentary evidence on request).

I shall try to find Mr. Parnell, your constituent, to tell him you will help.  He spends a lot of his time in police cells or court (case dropped by Stockport Council on the day of the hearing last time – he is in court again in January charged with assault with a sneeze with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold – I wonder if that will be dropped on the day of the hearing too).  Ten years it has taken him to navigate Stockport’s complaints system and now he is back to the very beginning again; you really couldn’t make it up.  40 arrests too – probably more by now.

You must have read the worrying letters from aggrieved complainants in the excellent Stockport Express, in particular those from parents of disabled children.  There is something seriously wrong at Stockport.  I am trying to find out if that lady from Stockport who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her autistic son was a victim of the Kafkaesque processes at our council.  There is no data protection for the dead, so I might get to see the documents.

In my own case I was banned for asking questions about the very strange goings on regarding the school on a toxic waste dump which is millions of pounds over budget and rising.  I represent hundreds of local people, which I can prove. My official complaint regarding the funny financial goings-on with regards to that hasn’t even been acknowledged by the Council.  That’s a good way to deal with complaints – ignore them.

Peace and blessings

Sheila

Did Stockport Council lie to a court in order to get a lower fine? Who knows.

Email sent – 13 October 2009 17:50

Dear Ms Naven

Again, no reply. Please may I have one.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Working towards a less corrupt council
—————————————————————————-

Email sent – 28 August 2009 17:59 to FoI Officer

Dear Ms Naven

I think this is an example of the stalling tactics which force further questions which then lead to the questioner being branded vexatious and worse.

I originally asked a question after a pensioner died as a result of maintenance not being carried out at 62 council owned premises, ostensibly because money had suddenly been diverted to deal with the asbestos in schools issue, although this problem had been known about for some time. The Council said in court that they had budget difficulties and as a result they were given a considerably reduced fine. This was the first I had heard about a budget deficit and indeed Goddard said they had put £5 million away for a rainy day. The court case was only this April, so within living memory. The totally inadequate reply came back that there was no budget deficit. How very odd, I thought, so I wrote back telling you Andrew Webb would know all about it and you should ask him. I heard nothing. Then I mentioned to Weldon in a meeting and he went off on one of his offensive rants again at me. I want to get to the bottom of this issue, so I asked the question below as to a written explanation of why the maintenance at the 62 buildings wasn’t carried out, which may have led to the death of the pensioner. I assume someone somewhere was asked to write an explanation of what had happened.

So you write back today – asking which maintenance – which means I have to write back again with this totally unnecessary explanation, you can stall a bit longer and you can brand me vexatious for asking yet another question.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

———————————————————————————

August 28, 2009 11:59 AM

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2132).

Please clarify which maintenance you refer to so that we can proceed with your request.

Yours sincerely,

Clare Naven
Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Council

————————————————————————————-

Email sent – 28 August 2009 17:59

Dear Ms Naven

£5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue – Ref 1920 – Response

Does this exist? If so, may I see it?

Yours sincerely

Sheila

————————————————————————————-

Email sent June 29, 2009 5:44 PM

Dear Ms Naven

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
————————————————————————————

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:20 PM

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.

Clare Naven
Freedom of Information Officer
SMBC
————————————————————————————

Email sent 06 June 2009 08:37

Dear FoI Officer

£5.6 million black hole – asbestos in schools issue

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

Email sent 27 January 2012 11:33

Ref. RCC0429756

Dear Mr Warburton

I am sorry if I have maligned you and will correct the statement if I have.

I have had no information regarding the toxic waste dump school for years, despite the site being toxic as I said, despite them suddenly having to borrow £5 million as I said, despite the police having complained about the dangerous traffic situation as I said, despite local people being denied access to the rear of their own properties as I said, despite the school not being finished in six months, as I said.

Perhaps you could clear up that misunderstanding for me. What information did you persuade them to disclose?

Kind regards

Sheila

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:00 PM

Dear Ms Oliver

I refer to the recent emails you have exchanged with Rachael Cragg and the ICO.

To avoid any confusion, I would like to point out that the only case I dealt with for you was under reference FS50205853 where I was successful in persuading the council to disclose the requested information.

Yours sincerely

Michael Warburton, Senior Complaints Officer
ICO

FS5020585

Email sent by me 03 January 2012 20:41

Dear Mr Warburton

I write to you in the hope that you can help me clear this matter up. I have already taken this matter to the Information Commissioner and every member of the ICO Board and shall do so again with more up to date worrying developments.

Regarding the toxic waste dump school where you inexplicably said I was vexatious, even though I provided you with evidence that the site was contaminated with deadly brown asbestos, lead and arsenic and Stockport Council, who you found to be cleaner than clean, lied about this.

What has happened now is that despite the school only having been open since September 2011 – large numbers of parents have taken their children from the school due to bullying issues. I raised the matter of bullying in such a huge primary school – you declared me vexatious. The school ceiling collapsed – mercifully no child was hurt this time. The council is still refusing to disclose any details to me about this because you declared me vexatious. I mentioned the fact that the school was being thrown up – because of your branding of me as vexatious, Stockport Council was able to ignore this. |More danger to kids!

The police have expressed serious concerns to the Council about the traffic arrangements around the school – I raised these concerns at a time when something could have been done about it – you declared me vexatious. There is no doubt that children will die as a result of this school – either a slow and painful disablement followed by an early death from mesothelioma (I pointed out they were failing to remove the brown asbestos – you declared me vexatious, so that gave them carte blanche to carry on and not do the job properly). Children are likely to die in road accidents around the school. You will have a lot on your conscience. I have at all times tried my best. You have publicly defamed me when I provided rock solid evidence of wrongdoing. Even the fact that they lied about the contamination was enough to prove me to be not vexatious.

I hope we can now re-open this matter. If you fail to respond in a helpful manner, I shall have no option but to expose your inexplicable decision in fine detail on the Internet. You wrongly defamed me. I shall correctly simply identify the action you took, failed to take and the ridiculous length of time you took to come to such a dangerous decision.

There must be an option to re-examine cases when evidence of wrongdoing – in this case by Stockport Council – comes to light.

I hope in future you take your duties more seriously. Kids’ lives are precious you know.

Sheila

FS50205853

15 July 2009

Dear Mrs Oliver

Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)

Thank you for your email dated 14 July 2009, the contents of which I have noted.

I confirm that I have received the withheld information from the council. However, I have also asked it to reconsider your original request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act 2000) which I believe is the appropriate legislation.

I am currently asking the council to clarify a number of issues and will write to you again as soon as I have received its response, which I anticipate will be quite soon.

Yours sincerely

Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO