Blog Image

Stockport Council & Other News

Appalling Case of Ms Davies And Her Young Son.

Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sun, November 16, 2025 13:32

16th November 2025

Email sent – Tue 18/08/2009 18:22

Dear Ms Naven

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/last-picture-of-bridge-leap-mum-1027304

Could you please explain the reason why my request is considered vexatious?  The parents of disadvantaged and disabled children are being treated very, very badly by this Council.  Are some driven to suicide as Mr. Parnell could easily have been? 

Which council officer decided this appalling case of Ms Davies didn’t warrant any report, despite the serious failings of the Council indicated in the Serious Case Review?

Please may I see any documents subsequently produced by the Council showing ways to address the Council’s failings documented in the Serious Case Review.

Yours

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

Dear Ms Naven

The review should be carried out by an independent council person – Ms Sager is certainly not that.

I look forward to hearing from you with a revised response.

Yours

Sheila

From: FOI Officer

To: Sheila Oliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:24 PM

Subject: Your request for an internal review – Ref FOI 1490 – Response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of the decision to refuse to respond to your request (ref 1490) on the basis that it was vexatious.

You originally requested the following:

‘Please may I see any complaints lodged by Alison Davies against SMBC. She is the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her autistic son.  There is no data protection for the dead – I have checked.’

This is the request which is the subject of the review. The review has been carried out by Donna Sager and is set out below:

Dear Mrs Oliver,

From a review of all pertinent information I am of the opinion that the request is vexatious and that responding to it could significantly impact on the relatives and family of the individual. It is clear from the emails you’ve sent about this matter that you recognise the privacy issues associated with your request and although the Data Protection Act 1998 does not apply to information about the deceased, in my opinion responding to your request is likely to distress relatives of Ms Davies and her son, who have a legitimate right to privacy. This is because as you will know, any response to an FOI request is a disclosure to the public as a whole, not just to you.

I do not consider that requesting information about deceased individuals in this context serves any serious purpose other than to cause distress to those who knew Ms Davies and to harass the Council. The link between this request and the ongoing issues regarding a small number of unrelated official complaints to Stockport Council indicates to me that your request is of a vexatious nature which is requested in order to try to discredit the Council as opposed to any genuine interest in the individual case.

Any information the Council may hold about these very tragic circumstances should not be used for purposes other than those which have previously been dealt with under the serious case review. Any other requests do not appear to have a benefit. I am aware that subsequent emails of this nature simply confirm this view that I am upholding.  

If you are unhappy with the outcome of the 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 545745

Yours sincerely,

Donna Sager

Service Director (Strategy & Performance)

Children & Young People’s Directorate

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Ms Naven

In the interim I have found out the details for myself. Although criticised in the Serious Case Review for failure to document her case, hold joint meetings and  liaise with other services which could help Ms Davies, despite this involving the death of a 9-year-old child when his mother jumped with him from the Humber Brige, a council meeting was told that the Council was under no obligation to produce a report on this tragic case.

I shall keep digging and request further information when I have gone through her NHS records.

With warmest best wishes

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: Sheila Oliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:08 AM

Subject: RE: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge – Ref 2000 Further response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

As per my previous email, the Council is not aware of any such report regarding Ms Davies. It is clear from your email that you believe such a report exists and was taken to a Council meeting; therefore if you still maintain this is the case, please specify which Council meeting you believe this report was taken to. The response to your request as it stands is that no such report is held by the Council.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 12 August 2009 17:42
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge – Ref 2000 Response

Dear Ms Naven

We will go into this bit by bit if you wish.  Alison Davies from Stockport jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9 year old autistic son. Was there any internal investigation/report regarding her dealings with Stockport Council? I assume the mother of an autistic child would have had some assistance from the Council.   I have been told on good authority that a report about the incident was put before a council meeting, and that is was decided that Ms. Davies was suffering from mental illness.

I look forward to hearing from you.  However long it takes.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: Sheila Oliver

Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:06 PM

Subject: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge – Ref 2000 Response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2000).

As far as we’re aware, no such report about Ms Davies is held by the Council; however if you have reason to believe otherwise, if you are able to clarify your request and specify, for example, which kind of report you are referring to we will reconsider it.  

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: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 11 July 2009 06:58
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge

Dear FoI Officer

Please send me the report put to Stockport Council regarding Alison Davies, the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9-year-old autistic son.

Yours 

Sheila



Public Petition: Justice for Luba Macpherson.

Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Fri, September 19, 2025 17:26

19th September 2025

We call on the King, Parliament, and UK authorities to act now to protect the rights of Luba Macpherson, her family and other vulnerable adults trapped in unsafe care.

Luba and her daughter have spent years under restrictions imposed by the Court of Protection.

During this time:

  • Her daughter has been repeatedly prescribed medication known to cause severe distress, against the advice of previous doctors. And she has been given contraception against her and her family’s wishes.
  • Complaints about neglect, unsafe care, and inappropriate medication have been ignored by regulators.
  • The court process has been secretive and one-sided, leaving her family powerless to protect her.

This is a breach of basic human rights — including the right to family life (Article 8, Human Rights Act) and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3).

What We’re Demanding

We ask:

  • Police: Reopen investigations into alleged wilful neglect and perjury.
  • Justice Secretary: Order an independent review of the Court of Protection case.
  • Care Regulators: Investigate failings in Luba’s daughter’s treatment and the conduct of those responsible.

This case is not unique — thousands of families face similar struggles with secrecy, bureaucracy, and lack of accountability in the care and legal systems. We are standing up for Luba and for every family who has been silenced.

📢 Add your name. Help us call for justice.

https://www.change.org/LubaMacpherson



Oh My Giddy Aunt – Sunderland Council Again.

Luba Macpherson, Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, September 18, 2025 17:17

18th September 2025

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/politics/town-hall-rich-list-shows-the-top-earners-at-sunderland-city-council-in-202324-5061088

According to the report, Patrick Melia, the chief executive of Sunderland City Council, was the highest earner at the council last year, receiving a total of £240,734 – £203,273 in salary, £3,443 in expenses and £34,018 in pension contributions.

Director of adult services: Salary of £125,229, expenses of £1,287, pension contributions of £21,702 – totalling £148,218 (Sunderland Care and Support has been recharged £68,565 in respect of this position).

Key Figures

ItemValue (as at 31 March 2025)Comparison or TrendNotes on Implication
Usable reserves£200 million Sunderland City CouncilUp slightly from ~£196 million in 2023/24. Sunderland City Council+1Shows the council has some financial buffer. But much of these reserves are earmarked (i.e. committed) rather than “free” to use. Sunderland City Council
Unusable reserves~£562 million Sunderland City CouncilDown from ~£608 million in previous year. Sunderland City Council+1These include technical accounting reserves (revaluation, pensions etc). They don’t directly support funding of services but affect the reported net assets.
Net Assets~£762 million Sunderland City CouncilDown from ~£804 million in 2023/24. Sunderland City Council+1Slight decrease in net value partly due to lower unusable reserves. But still a strong overall “balance sheet” position.
Working capital ratio1.1 (2024/25) Sunderland City CouncilWas ~1.4 in 2023/24. Sunderland City Council+1Ratio >1 means current assets exceed short‐term liabilities; but the drop suggests less flexibility/liquidity than last year.
Long-term liabilities & provisions~£688 million Sunderland City CouncilSlight increase from prior year (~£680m) Sunderland City CouncilIncludes pension obligations, debt etc; it’s a large number and important in assessing long-term risk.
Capital expenditure 2024/25£148.692 million Sunderland City CouncilCapital expenditure under non‐current assets ~£118.959m; plus loans, grants etc ~£27.897m. Sunderland City CouncilShows the council is continuing to invest significantly, which is good, but also means borrowing/service financing costs to consider.

What These Numbers Imply

  • The council has usable reserves that are reasonably large (~£200m), which gives it some breathing room. But many of these reserves are already earmarked, which limits how much can be used under pressure. Sunderland City Council
  • The working capital ratio drop (from 1.4 to 1.1) suggests less slack in dealing with short-term obligations. If unexpected liabilities or delays in income occur, there is less buffer. Sunderland City Council
  • Long-term liabilities remain large. Among these, pension obligations, borrowing etc are material long-term risks. If investment returns, discount rate assumptions or funding arrangements worsen, costs could rise. Sunderland City Council
  • Capital spending remains high, which is positive for infrastructure etc, but raises the question of how sustainable future maintenance / interest / new borrowing costs will be. Sunderland City Council
  • Overall net assets have decreased slightly. The decrease in unusable reserves is a major driver of that (these are the revaluation/pension etc reserves). Because unusable reserves don’t directly translate into cash, this doesn’t immediately affect service delivery but is relevant to long-term financial health. Sunderland City Council

Overall Assessment

  • Sunderland’s financial position is solid but under pressure.
  • There is enough in reserves and the assets/liabilities position is not alarming.
  • However, the drop in liquidity (working capital ratio), the size of long-term liabilities, and the large commitments (capital, earmarked reserves) suggest the margin for error is getting smaller.
  • Risks (inflation, rising demand for services, potential unexpected liabilities) could stress budget forecasts.

What the council says: Budget gap, reserves & cuts

From Sunderland’s own budget documents and statements:

  • The council says that for 2025/26, there is an estimated gap of £22 million between what it expects to receive (income, grants, etc.) and what it needs to spend to maintain current service levels. Sunderland City Council
  • To help with this, they plan to use £9 million from reserves. Sunderland City Council
  • After that, this leaves a residual gap of about £13.5 million that must be addressed by cuts, efficiencies etc. Sunderland City Council
  • There is also a longer-term projection: over the next four years (beyond 2025/26), they estimate a total gap of over £64 million if current pressures and funding assumptions persist. Sunderland City Council

Other figures & cost pressures

  • The council’s tax leaflet says that to balance the 2025/26 budget, Sunderland will need to decide on budget cuts of about £10.2 million and also use the £9 million in reserves mentioned above. Sunderland City Council
  • The proposed council tax increase is ~4.49% for core services for 2025/26. This is to help close part of the funding gap. Sunderland City Council+1
  • Media reporting also clarifies a “funding gap” figure of £18.154 million for 2025/26 after the use of reserves. Without using the reserves, that gap would be about £27.154 million. Asian Standard Newspaper

What this suggests: Risk and Balance

Putting those together:

  • Sunderland is not forecasting a large surplus; it is trying to avoid a deficit by combining modest tax rises, using reserves (which is a finite resource), and making savings.
  • Using reserves to balance budgets isn’t a sustainable long-term strategy – the £9 million in reserves helps this year but reserves must be replenished or else future years could be less flexible.
  • The scale of the cuts / efficiencies required is significant but not massive in council terms: £10-£18 million in savings/cuts/efficiencies (depending on how reserves are used) is what’s needed to make things balance.

Proposed service changes / savings areas

From local sources (council reports, media coverage) these are some of the proposed service cuts or changes Sunderland is considering to help meet the financial gap: Sunderland City Council+3Sunderland Echo+3Sunderland City Council+3

Service / AreaProposed Change / ReviewNotes
Social care (Adults and Children’s)Reshaping how social care services are delivered; reviewing how staff/support are organized; reviewing telecare service; more cost-efficient delivery. Sunderland Echo+2Asian Standard Newspaper+2Because social care is one of the largest budget pressures (rising demand, inflation, staffing costs).
Support services / internal functionsStaffing reviews; managing vacant posts; looking at support services more efficiently. Sunderland Echo+1Non-frontline/admin/service support functions are usual places for efficiencies.
Cultural services & fees & chargesReviewing cultural services; increasing or changing fees/charges for some services. Sunderland Echo+1Likely to impact services like leisure, arts, heritage (e.g. museums, libraries) or other recreational facilities.
Alternative delivery modelsExploring “alternative delivery model” for managing council business centres. Sunderland Echo+1Might mean outsourcing / partial contracting / partnerships or different governance.
Utilities & operational costsReducing operational cost pressures: energy, vehicle fuel, especially for refuse/recycling, etc. Street lighting, maintaining buildings etc. Sunderland City Council+1These are more “cost containment” rather than cuts of services.
Council tax increaseProposed ~4.49% overall council tax increase (including adult social care levy) for 2025/26 to increase income to help fill the gap. Sunderland Echo+1Tax increases shift some burden to residents; mitigated via support schemes etc.

What services may be most at risk

Based on what the council is emphasising:

  • Vulnerable groups (children and adult social care) are under the highest pressure. The council repeatedly states rising demand and costs in those areas. Asian Standard Newspaper+2Sunderland Echo+2
  • Non-statutory or less “core” services like cultural services, arts, events, possibly leisure and management of business centres. These seem likely to be cut or scaled back. Sunderland Echo+1
  • Operational services (buildings, venues, utilities, street lighting, etc.) may see cost increases or service reductions. Sometimes this implies less frequent maintenance or lower service levels. Sunderland City Council+1

Uncertainties & things not yet decided

  • The full list of cuts / decisions is not final. The council is in consultation / discussion stage. Sunderland City Council+1
  • Some savings are still proposals, not firm decisions. For example, “review cultural services” or “review telecare” means they may reduce, outsource, or change the scope. Sunderland Echo
  • Funding from government (settlement) and assumptions about inflation etc still have uncertainty, which may force adjustments. Asian Standard Newspaper+1


What Has Gone Wrong In The Family Courts?

Luba Macpherson, Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, September 18, 2025 16:58

18th September 2025

Even prison officers are commenting on the amount of women coming in for family issues, and questioning what has gone wrong with this country. Just as the policeman who phoned Luba in France to arrest her, laughed and said “Well bloody good luck to you”!



Sunderland has a very high rate of Ombudsman complaints being upheld — far above many councils.

Luba Macpherson, Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, September 18, 2025 16:49

Key Statistics (2023-24)

18th September 2025

From the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) data for Sunderland City Council:

  • Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, 12 investigations of complaints were decided. LGO
  • Of those, 11 were upheld (i.e. the Ombudsman found fault in how the Council handled them). That is a very high uphold rate of 92%, well above the average for similar authorities (≈80%). LGO
  • Sunderland fully complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendations in all cases. LGO
  • In 36% of the upheld cases, the Council had already offered a “satisfactory remedy” before the complaint got to the Ombudsman. LGO

Specific Cases

Here are some concrete examples of Ombudsman-upheld complaints and related outcomes:

  1. Parents’ care home complaint (November 2024)
    • Complainant: Anita Robson, about the care her parents (Ethel and Tony Haley) were receiving in a care home. Sunderland Echo
    • Issues: Delay in reassigning a social worker, failure to keep accurate case notes, and delays in responding properly to the complaint. The complainant had asked for a move to a different care home but no assessment was done because the social worker was absent. Sunderland Echo
    • Decision: The Ombudsman upheld that there was fault in these procedural delays and poor record-keeping. The Council was ordered to:
      • Apologise in writing.
      • Pay £400 (already agreed) plus an additional £100 for distress caused by the delay. Sunderland Echo
    • Also required: provide evidence of what steps they’d take to ensure sufficient sickness cover for social workers, and improve case note accuracy. Sunderland Echo
  2. Adult social care / anti-social behaviour (ASB) complaint (Q1 2025)
    • Between January-March of a certain year, 11 Ombudsman complaints about adult social care in Sunderland were completed. Of those, three were upheld. One involved “lack of action” on the part of the council regarding anti-social behaviour. Sunderland Echo
    • Outcome: While fault was found for delay, the council was found eventually to have provided a “suitable remedy” for that complaint. Sunderland Echo

What This Tells Us / Observations

  • Sunderland has a very high rate of Ombudsman complaints being upheld — far above many councils. This suggests recurring issues in certain areas (e.g. delays, communication, social care response, case handling).
  • While upheld, some issues are procedural rather than substantive (for example, record-keeping or delay), but they still cause distress and often require compensation.
  • The Council seems to (at least in recent data) be complying with the Ombudsman’s recommendations in these cases, which is positive. LGO
  • Even when the Council addresses some problems before the Ombudsman gets involved (satisfactory remedy), many cases are still finding fault, showing that prevention isn’t always happening early enough.
  • Upheld / fault-found LGO decisions about Sunderland City Council (selected recent cases)
  • 1) Adult care — Residential care (ref: 22 018 067) — Decision: Upheld (15 Jan 2024)
  • Summary: Four Seasons Health Care and Sunderland City Council missed opportunities to reduce a resident’s fall risk and care-record keeping fell below guidance. The Ombudsman found fault that caused injustice to the resident’s relative; agreed remedies were required. LGO
  • 2) Education — Special educational needs (ref: 24 010 781) — Decision: Upheld (date on page)
  • Summary: The Ombudsman upheld the aspect of the complaint relating to delay in amending an Education, Health & Care (EHC) plan. The Ombudsman concluded intervention would not change some substantive matters (those are subject to Tribunal), but found delay had caused injustice. See the LGO page for detail. LGO
  • 3) Assessment & care plan — Adult social care (ref: 24 008 565) — Decision: Upheld (16 Oct 2024)
  • Summary: The Ombudsman found fault with Sunderland’s assessment/care-planning process (details on the decision page). It is listed as “Statement — Upheld” and sets out the remedial action agreed. LGO
  • 4) Other / Planning-advice style complaint (ref: 23 018 142) — Decision: Statement — Upheld (27 Mar 2024)
  • Summary: The Ombudsman’s entry records fault in how the council handled/advised on a planning-related matter; it is recorded as a “statement” outcome (the LGO sometimes issues statements where they record fault but do not carry out a full investigation). See the decision page for specifics. LGO
  • Notes, context and patterns
  • The Ombudsman’s decisions for Sunderland that are upheld commonly relate to delays, incomplete or poor assessments, and record-keeping / case management failures — especially in adult social care and SEN. LGO+2LGO+2
  • Some LGO outcomes are published as “statement — upheld”: the Ombudsman records fault but may not undertake a full investigation if it concludes further investigation would not change the outcome or another route (e.g. Tribunal appeal) is more appropriate.


Luba’s Own Words.

Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, September 18, 2025 08:30

18th September 2025

“Abuse with unnecessary medication became the basis of my original complaints. It was October 2017 when I first went to see a Solicitor, because we had struggled to put a stop to medication that the NHS site recommends not to use continuously. It states that prolonged use of this medication can give very serious side effects, like electrolyte imbalance. This means that levels of substances like sodium, potassium and magnesium in your body get too high or too low. A severe electrolyte imbalance can cause serious health problems such as muscle spasm and twitching and even convulsions. Using this medication continuously could also stop your bowel working on its own. For some unknown reason, the care company took upon themselves to approach the psychiatric hospital where my daughter had spent seven months previously and where it was prescribed originally. They managed to get a prescription for a double dose of this medication that affected my daughter badly. She started to suffer from excessive saliva; diarrhoea, and vomiting and I struggled to put a stop to that medication, because as soon as it would stop, it was reinstalled again and again. Even after the Solicitor’s advice to my daughter to put a written note from her to her Doctor in order to stop this medication was ignored, because the Care Provider approached another Doctor who reinstalled it again. This on its own indicates an overbearing and bullying attitude that we suffer from. This attitude still continues up to this day. Please note that at that time my daughter’s capacity was accepted. She had three mental capacity assessments at the hospital and was found to be mentally capable”



Sarah Wright Of The Care Quality Commission.

Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, September 18, 2025 06:45

18th September 2025

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 16:04, Complaints <Complaints@cqc.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Ms Oliver and Ms Macpherson,

I have been made aware of the below correspondence by the Information Access Team.

The information of concern you have shared in respect of the care provided to your daughter, has been passed onto the National Customer Service Centre (NCSC). They will record this information within the central recording system, and this will then be considered by the Integrated Assessment and Inspection Team (IAIT).

Concerns about registered services should be shared via enquiries@cqc.org.uk, or via the alternative methods listed within the following link: Report a concern if you are a member of the public – Care Quality Commission. This provides details of how to complaint about a care provider.

Please note, the remit of the CQC does not allow us to investigate individual complaints about the services we regulate, or take them forward on an individual’s behalf. The following link provides further details as to how we use information shared with us about peoples experiences: How we use information and data – Care Quality Commission.

As outlined in my previous reply, I am still in the process of handling your complaint about CQC and will provide a further response as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Kind regards,

Sarah Wright

Complaints Officer – National Complaints Team



Luba Macpherson And Her Lovely Daughter.

Parents of Disabled Children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Thu, September 18, 2025 06:26

18th September 2025

Luba Macpherson, is facing a situation that raises serious questions about how we treat educated and capable women in our justice system.

Luba, who first came to Britain in 1997 from Russia, has always been committed to learning and contribution. She came over to do voluntary work at a Camphill community, helping to care for vulnerable people. At first, she and her now husband could only communicate with the help of a pocket English-Russian dictionary — but within a short time, Luba had learned enough English to hold conversations, cook traditional English dishes, and begin building a life here.

Her daughter developed a fascination with 19th-century Academic Art, exploring European movements entirely on her own via her computer. She also wrote and collected poetry, building an online blog with readers from across the world.

Her passion for language led her to study interpretation, pass assessments, and even secure a role with Sunderland City Council as an on-call translator for Russian speakers in hospitals or custody situations. She was later offered a place at Birmingham University to train as an accredited translator — a demanding course requiring the translation of 5,000 words from Russian into English as part of the entrance exam. But now, after being imprisoned in a Sunderland “care” home, she has had her computer and phone confiscated. She cannot access her art studies, cannot post to her poetry blog, and cannot communicate with her friends — some of whom she has known since childhood — back in Russia.

Mr Melia, Chief Executive of Sunderland Council is very proud of his OBE. Has he anything else to be proud of? Luba is currently in a Category A prison for publicly trying to help her disabled daughter.



Next »