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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37201283

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2015/1043581/fs_50558777.pdf

Mr Christopher Graham
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Wilmslow
Cheshire

12th July 2015

By
Registered Post

Dear Mr Graham

Re Sheila
Oliver, vexatious branding – mesothelioma lawsuits and defamation issues.

Some years ago I sent
evidence to the ICO about a school being built on a still-gassing, toxic waste
dump site. I sent evidence of the
contaminated nature of the site and was subsequently proved correct by the
ground investigation report I eventually forced Stockport Council to conduct
(evidence available on request). I sent
evidence of the drainage problems, the fact that the school was deliberately
being built too small (an offence under the Fraud Act) and the dangerous
traffic situation that was being created around the school. I said they were £5m short in their funding
and at the last minute an extra £5m had to be borrowed to finance the
development, within one year of it opening the Council admitted the school was
not big enough and talked of re-opening the old school it replaced, and within
weeks of the school opening the police complained about the dangerous traffic
situation. I can prove all I am saying
and I did prove to your employees years ago these problems. I even offered to visit the ICO’s premises to
explain the nature of the evidence face to face. Instead of actually looking at that
evidence, I was branded “vexatious” by the ICO and the school was corruptly
built by Stockport Council. I am in a position
to prove I was never “vexatious”; I sent evidence at the time proving I wasn’t
vexatious, but the ICO ignored it. I
have every letter and email I sent to the ICO.
I am in a position to prove to lawyers that at no time was I ever
“vexatious”.

In addition, due to corruption at Stockport Council the
necessary money was not spent on drainage – on a former toxic waste dump over
an important aquifer and draining into a fishing pond.

Replacement playing fields were not provided, yet this was a
planning condition set by Sport England.
Why not? I am not allowed to ask
due to the ICO having branded me “vexatious”.
Disabled changing rooms should have been provided. They weren’t. What
happened to the £600k set aside for this?
I am not allowed to ask due to the ICO having falsely branded me as
vexatious.

£6.9m for the development should have come from the sale of
redundant school land. It didn’t – £1.6m
did and the rest had to be borrowed. Why was I not allowed to question this
massive loss of over £5million to the council taxpayer? Because the ICO had falsely (despite all the
excellent documentary evidence I had sent them) branded me vexatious.

£10m plus was wasted on a school which was never going to be
big enough. It is an offence under the
Fraud Act 2006 to act to deliberately cause someone a loss. It is an offence
under the Fraud Act 2006 to block access to documents pertaining to a
fraud. Exactly what happened in this
case. The Council’s legal officer, whom
I have since discovered appears to have no legal qualifications whatsoever,
cheated local people out of their statutory public inquiry for the disposal of
local open space.

So the actions of the ICO have cost the disabled their
changing rooms, local people their replacement playing fields and much needed
local open space and over £5 million.

I enclose a press cutting regarding flooding problems at the
pond next to this site. Over the last
few months corrupt Stockport Council officials have been maintaining that my
drainage questions about this site were “vexatious”. £200k should have been spent on the drainage
at this site – it obviously wasn’t.

But worse, far worse than all that, the new school was built
on unremediated brown asbestos. When I sent corrupt Stockport Council video
evidence that the brown asbestos had not been removed from this primary school
site, they were able to quote your erroneous “vexatious” branding and ignored
it. Hundreds of primary school children
and young babies in the nursery are being educated on a site from which lethal
brown asbestos fibres have not been removed

I don’t know if you are acquainted with the sort of sums
involved with mesothelioma lawsuits – certainly they have been enough in the
past to bankrupt companies such as Turner & Newall. Huge sums have had to be set aside for
victims. How long will it take young
babies on this site to develop lung damage caused by the brown asbestos fibres
or develop mesothelioma? Who knows? I can’t think of a case ever where young
children have been deliberately exposed to this lethal material. All, I assume, because corrupt council
officers and councillors at Stockport wanted their customary planning
backhanders.

There is therefore, the question of the damage that has been
caused to my reputation – I am a national campaigner with successes such as
with Tesco – playing a large part in getting them the £1m Competition
Commission fine. I also helped expose £3
billion of waste at the Highways Agency (evidence available on request).

I could have believed this might have been one rogue, lazy ICO
officer who couldn’t be bothered to look at the evidence submitted were it not
for the fact that I am witnessing with total incredulity the Dransfield
cases. The ICO is firmly on the side of
the corrupt and has no interest in protecting the public purse or safety.

I look forward to your comments on how we now take this matter
forward. I am drawing this matter not
only to your attention but also to the attention of the ICO Board, whom I
assume will be personally liable for any
subsequent massive lawsuits from the damaged and dying children as well as the
more minor case of the damage to my reputation.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Oliver

c.c. Simon Entwisle, Deputy Chief Executive Officer

c.c. David Smith, the Deputy Commissioner

c.c. Graham Smith the Deputy Commissioner

c.c. Ailsa Beaton OBE
Board Member

c.c. Andrew Hind CB
Board Member

c.c. Ian Watmore
Board Member

c.c. Nicola Wood
Board Member

c.c. Lord Goddard, Councillor, Stockport Council

c.c. Sue Derbyshire, Leader, Stockport Council

c.c Eamonn Boylan, Chief Executive, Stockport Council

c.c. Parveen Akhtar, Monitoring Officer, Stockport C ouncil

c.c Andrew Webb, Director of CYPD, Stockport Council – lied about questions pertaining to one
primary school project costing £2,400 to
redact.

c.c. Donna Sager, Asst Director of CYPD, Stockport Council – who personally lied about the true situation
as project manager of a massively overbudget and being built too small school
and branded questions “vexatious”. Why was the project manager able to block
FOI questions?

c.c. John Hill, Legal Officer, Stockport Council

c.c. Iain Roberts, Deputy Leader, Stockport Council

c.c. Head of FOIA, Stockport Council

c.c Anwar Majothi, Complaints Officer, SMBC – personally lied
to the ICO about this matter.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/angling-club-threatens-take-stockport-9424885

“An angling
club says it will take legal action unless a council honours an old agreement
to install proper drainage at its pond.

Reddish
Angling Club agreed to let Stockport Council use Jackson’s Pond as an overflow
for excess water from playing fields at the nearby Vale View Primary School, on
condition that proper drainage was installed.

But
the club claims the council has not held up its side of the bargain, which it
agreed to in writing, because the drain that has been installed is only half
the agreed size and doesn’t work.

As
a result, the pond has flooded on numerous occasions since the school opened in
2011.

he
authority says it is aware of the problems and has promised to involve the club
in discussions about how to solve it.

The
club’s committee has had to spend more than £8,000 of club funds to raise the
pond’s banking by 18 inches and has even had to call the fire service out to pump
away excess water.

Despite
carrying out extensive work themselves, they say there are still long periods
of time when the pond is so badly flooded that members can’t use it.

Flooding caused by
poor drainage at Jackson’s Pond, home of Reddish Angling Club

Club
banking manager Stephen Feast said: “The drain they put in is far too small and
is always blocked.

“If
you look in the manholes on the road next to it, they are always bone dry.

“It’s
just a disgrace. Members have to pay a subscription every year, and most of the
time they can’t even use half the pond. I’ve never seen it so bad.

“All
we want is a meeting with their solicitor and our solicitor. We just want to
talk to them sensibly.

“We
just want them to uphold their end of the bargain, but if they don’t come up
with an offer we will be left with no option but to take them to court.

“We’ve
done everything the council wanted us to do, we’ve upheld our end of the
bargain, and this is how they treat us.”

A
Stockport Council spokesman said: “Over recent years we have been discussing
the problem of drainage at Jackson’s Pool in Reddish with Reddish Angling Club
and have met with their representatives.

“Clearance
of roots has taken place from the pipe but this hasn’t solved the problem.

“The
council is currently working to find a longer-term solution to the problem and
will involve the angling club in these discussions.”

It takes a big, honest man to admit they were wrong and take steps to correct that error. Commissioner Graham is not such a man.

14th July 2009

Case Reference Number FS50247042

Dear Mrs Oliver

Thank you for your correspondence dated 11/07/09, regarding your request for internal review of the Stockport MBC decision not to release the information you requested.

The information you have provided will be retained on our files for information only. Please let me know the outcome of the review as and when it is communicated to you, or confirm in due course that there still has been no response to your request.

Your email dated 03/07/09 regarding Harcourt Street is also acknowledged.

Should you wish us to look into this matter further we would ask you to contact our Helpline on 08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a ‘national rate’ number quoting the above reference number. One of our advisors will then be able to discuss the matter with you and explain the options available to you.

Yours sincerely

Jim Dunn

FoI Case Officer

FoI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

This was regarding a 550 pupil primary school and nursery to be built on a still gassing landfill site, directly over the rubbish in-filled claypits, £5m over budget, not big enough and creating a lethal traffic situation for the children. There was no time for any delay. I got nothing else but delay and then a final branding of being “vexatious” by the ICO. All I foretold came true.

9th June 2009

Case Reference Number FS50232537
Stockport Council

Dear Mrs Oliver

Further to previous correspondence I regret to advise that it is still not possible to allocate your complaint to a caseworker.

We are dealing with outstanding complaints as quickly as we can and your complaint is continuing to progress up the queue. We are constantly reviewing our procedures in order to try and identify new ways to speed up complaints handling, thereby further speed up the allocation of complaints. However as the Commissioner has explained in his evidence to the Justice Select committee in January 2009 whilst improvements have been made to reduce the backlog of complaints, continual delays in allocation are largely attributable to a lack of resources. Our current level of funding for FOI will therefore restrict our ability to deliver further significant improvement in the immediate future.

We appreciate you will be disappointed by this continuing delay but we will keep you updated every twelve weeks about the status of your complaint.

Yours Sincerely

FOI Operations – Local Government

Information Commissioner’s Office

16th April 2009

Case Reference Number FS50232537

Dear Mrs Oliver

Your information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Thank you for your correspondence dated 15/04/09 in which you confirm that you have not yet received a response to your request for internal review following notification that your request for information had been deemed as vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Your case has been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will contact you as soon as possible to explain how your case will be progressed. Due to the volume of complaints we are receiving at present it may be several months before you hear from us.

The Information Commissioners Office is an independent public body set up to promote public access to official information. We will rule on eligible complaints from people who are unhappy with the way public authorities have handled requests for information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.

If you need to contact us about any aspect of your complaint about Stockport MBC please contact our Freedom of Information Helpline on 08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a ‘national rate’ number, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Sent on behalf of

Mr Paul Arnold

Head of Front Line Operations

FOI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office