20th November 2025
https://www.facebook.com/chris.g8hcb.spencer/videos/1767549797224462?idorvanity=2726377140725084
https://www.facebook.com/chris.g8hcb.spencer/videos/850176924078361?idorvanity=2726377140725084
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Dear Information Commissioner,
Re: Complaint regarding the improper use of Section 14 (“vexatious requests”) by Stockport Council again.
I am writing to make a formal complaint about the refusal by Stockport Council in the past to respond to my information requests, which have been dismissed as “vexatious” under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
My requests related to serious governance matters, including planning decisions, transparency concerns, and allegations published publicly in the following blog posts:
These posts raise significant issues of public interest, and my questions sought clarity and transparency about the decision-making processes referenced in them.
A555 flooding concerns
In addition, I raised questions regarding the A555, a road which has experienced repeated and well-documented flooding incidents since its opening. Prior to the road opening, I submitted a request to see the flood risk assessment that informed or justified the decision to proceed.
Instead of providing this critical document—or even engaging with the substance of the request—the authority declared my request “vexatious.” This designation is particularly troubling because the flood risk assessment is a key safety and public-interest document, and the persistent flooding of the A555 demonstrates the importance of understanding whether adequate risk evaluation was undertaken.
Concerns about misuse of Section 14
The authority did not:
- Provide any evidence log or reasoning demonstrating how my request met the statutory threshold for vexatiousness.
- Consider the broader context or public interest in understanding the safety assessment of a major public highway.
- Demonstrate that responding would impose a disproportionate burden or that my behaviour could reasonably be considered harassing or disruptive.
Instead, the “vexatious” label appears to have been used to avoid disclosing potentially inconvenient information relating to planning competence, governance, and public safety.
I respectfully request that the ICO:
- Investigate whether the authority’s application of Section 14 complies with ICO guidance and established case law.
- Require the authority to provide evidence supporting the designation of my requests as vexatious, including any internal assessments or logs.
- Issue a Decision Notice if the refusal is found to be unsupported, procedurally flawed, or inconsistent with the public interest.
- Provide corrective advice to the authority to ensure that Section 14 is not used to avoid answering legitimate, safety-related, or politically sensitive questions.
Conclusion
By using Section 14 to refuse both corruption-related inquiries and safety-critical requests regarding the A555 flood risk assessment, the authority appears to be undermining the purpose and spirit of FOIA. Such actions hinder public scrutiny and may conceal issues of significant public concern. With a 1 billion pound project like this, a lot of questions need to be asked.
I would be grateful for confirmation of receipt of this complaint and details of the next steps.
Yours faithfully
Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette
