Re; FS50205853
15 May 2009
Dear Ms Oliver,
Your complaint about Stockport MBC (the council)
Thank you for your letter dated 12 May 2009 together with the attached Newspaper article, the contents of which I have noted.
I will write to you again once I have heard from Ms Naven at the council and had an opportunity to consider her response.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Warburton
Senior Complaints Officer
ICO
Email sent to the ICO – 24 August 2009 17:03
Dear Mr Dunn
Many thanks for your response. I will get back to you should it be necessary. I really don’t want to waste any of your time – I appreciate all that the ICO does.
Regarding Harcourt Street, because of financial irregularities, in line with the Council’s Fraud and Irregularity Policy, apparently they shouldn’t have hidden any documents regarding Harcourt Street – certainly not all the financial ones – so they have completely wasted the ICO’s time again on that topic. I am going to the Audit Commission – one financial irregularity of many would appear to include a miscalculation of a quarter of a million pounds. Only in Stockport, eh!
Kind regards
Sheila
24th August 2009
Case Reference Number FS50247042
Dear Mrs Oliver
I have returned from annual leave and there are 6 pieces of correspondence appended to the above case reference, on a variety of subjects. I have itemised below each piece of correspondence and provided an update as to how it is being treated.
Case reference FS50247042 deals with your request to ‘see complaints made by Alison Davies against SMBC’. You requested an internal review of the SMBC response in your email of 15/07/09 (after some clarification had been provided).
Item 1 – email from you to SMBC dated 09/08/09 is a reminder requesting the outcome of the internal review.
Item 2 – SMBC confirmed the outcome of the internal review on 18/08/09 and you responded with an email questioning the independence of the individual who carried out the review.
Item 3 – SMBC confirmed the outcome of the internal review on 18/08/09 and you responded by asking why the request was deemed vexatious.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of an internal review you can ask us to look into the matter further. In the absence of such a request I have no option to assume that the response from SMBC has satisfied your request for information and the case will remain closed.
Item 3 above also contains a reference to a Serious Case Review and a request by you to see any documents prepared by SMBC following that review. In line with other instances where you have confirmed a course of action you have taken, this information will be held on file for information only.
Item 4 – email from you to SMBC regarding the Harcourt Site, this has been copied into case reference FS50205853 which deals with Harcourt Site issues.
Item 5 – email from you to SMBC in connection with the treatment of ‘Mr Parnell’. In line with my previous correspondence dated 20/07/09 this information will be held on file for information only.
Item 6 – email from you to SMBC regarding a request for a report presented to SMBC concerning MS Davies. SMBC have confirmed they ‘do not hold’ the information you requested and in line with other such instances the information will be retained on file for information only.
Please confirm how you wish to proceed in respect of the outcome of the internal review conducted in connection with case reference number FS50247042.
Yours sincerely
Jim Dunn
FoI Case Officer
Email sent to casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk – 18 July 2010 08:54
Mr Andrew White
FoI Triage Team Leader
Dear Mr White
Please see the attached.
There is the very dangerous brown asbestos on the site. A team of specialist asbestos workers are now going to have to hand-sift the site to remove asbestos before they can carry further investigations to see how to proceed. We warned the Council about the nature of this site.
Stockport Council is refusing to disclose all information still. They refused to disclose to me that they had found brown asbestos! This is nothing more than a cover-up.
At no time have I been vexatious. What I have been is rightly concerned at their plans to endanger the lives of 550 primary school children and 50 babies and this has been proven. They tried to open the school on this site in September 2008 leaving all the brown asbestos, arsenic and lead in situ.
There is criminal negiligence here and I am beginning to wonder about kickbacks, so extensive has been the cover-up of what has been going on.
I am going to write to the Information Commission’s management board about this case. What has gone on is a complete scandal. I am not blaming the Information Commission for declaring me vexatious; you could only act on the information received, but I am going to take this to the very top to get answers about what has been going on in this, to my mind corrupt, council.
I would very much appreciate, if you think they should be answering questions, if you could tell them as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Sheila
But don’t.
I was right about the school being too small, an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, I was right about the dangerous traffic situation, right about the financial irregularities, right about the drainage problems and right about the contamination.
Anwar Majothi lied to the Information Commission and achieved this verdict because the ICO don’t bother to read evidence submitted to them.
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/not-big-enough-one-year-on.html
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/no-playing-fields.html
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/contamination.html
This is what should happen …
