Stockport Council & Other News

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

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

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”

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

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.

Article Information

• Author,Matt Precey & Nikki Fox
• Role,BBC Look East

A father has described his rage and sense of powerlessness when staff at an NHS mental health unit made false accusations against him.

Richard faced a string of allegations including sexual abuse, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

He was accused of “secret trysts” with his daughter and inappropriately touching her.

Official paperwork, passed between agencies, also identified him as a risk to his wife along with an accusation of making a pass at a male member of staff at the St Aubyn Centre in Colchester.

He was exonerated and eventually provided with an apology and compensation.

A report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman criticised the unit along with two other organisations.

Richard says “the whole thing was a joke, but these people were really serious”.

The centre, which is run by the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (EPUT), has recently resumed admitting new patients after they were suspended by the Care Quality Commission when inspectors found young people there had come to harm.

The events which engulfed Richard and his family took place in 2016.

Sophie, his eldest daughter, was admitted to the St Aubyn Centre in February 2015, aged 14, after stays in a number of other units.

She had a severe form of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), an eating disorder and had been diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression.

She was then sectioned under the Mental Health Act, after she developed what were termed distressing ritualistic behaviours.

“[She] was extremely, extremely ill, crying and screaming a lot,” said her father.

‘Malice – without any doubt’

On one day in January 2016 she had been repeatedly tube-fed by staff at the centre while pinned down on her back, despite her vomiting almost continuously.

The family were subsequently notified by the local environmental health team that she had a salmonella infection.

That evening she was admitted to Colchester General Hospital.

A few weeks later during her stay there, Sophie said she was physically assaulted by a carer from the St Aubyn Centre after a confrontation over moving a water jug, which was related to her OCD.

Shortly after the family complained, allegations against the father were made by a senior member of staff at the centre, in the form of a safeguarding referral.

According to Richard “there was malice – without any doubt”.

‘Runaway train’

The referral was to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub – a group of professionals from designated organisations who gather and act on child protection information..

“It was like a runaway train, it was just gathering momentum,” is how Richard’s wife, Cathy, described it.

The form, seen by the BBC, contained an allegation that Richard had made “a sexual pass towards a male member of staff”.

The document also recorded that staff at the St Aubyn Centre witnessed Richard inappropriately touching his daughter and that the family may have been “sabotaging treatment plans”.

Eight different boxes were ticked indicating a range of harms including sexual abuse, a concealed pregnancy and domestic violence.

It also requested an investigation into “potential abuse” by Richard and “potentially mum” on Sophie’s younger sister Jane.

The Ombudsman’s report detailed how Colchester General had previously undertaken a pregnancy test on Jane, without her consent and despite her being just 14 at the time, after she developed abdominal problems.

The family believed this was due to the previous insinuations of sexual contact between father and daughter, based on hospital staff misinterpreting their closeness.

This information ended up in her notes and the safeguarding form.

‘Sick in the car’

The parents were summoned to a child protection conference organised by Suffolk County Council’s Children and Young People department.

Richard was advised to leave the family home by the county council, which he did.

“I can remember going to that meeting and literally being sick in the car,” said Richard.

They were provided with reports from the social worker, the police and the hospital just 15 minutes beforehand, contravening the council’s own policies.

But at the conference the St Aubyn side “changed its mind and presented a completely different view” according to the Ombudsman’s findings.

The police could find no evidence of domestic violence or that the parents had interfered with their daughter’s health plan.

It was also pointed out that the parents could not have been guilty of neglect because their daughter had been in the care of the mental health trust and the hospital.

A parenting assessment carried out by a social worker and presented to the meeting concluded there was “no evidence [Richard] had behaved inappropriately within a sexual context” with his daughter.

He was told he could return home.

The investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman criticised the mental health trust, Colchester General Hospital and Suffolk County Council, finding “fault with injustice” with all three organisations.

All three accepted the Ombudsman’s findings and paid several thousand pounds in compensation to the family.

The family’s experiences were among a litany of failures by EPUT and its predecessor organisations.

In June, the trust was fined £1.5m for safety failings in relation to the deaths of 11 patients between 2004 and 2015.

Then in September 2021, the two wards at the St Aubyn Centre and another adolescent unit operated by the trust were stopped from admitting new patients after inspectors found “serious concerns”.

They have since reopened for new admissions.

• Man’s partner ‘begged’ for help before his death
• Report says concerns about arsonist not acted on
• Staff missed signs of abuse before woman’s murder

NHS mental health services in Essex, including EPUT, are now at the centre of an inquiry into deaths of inpatients under their care over a 20-year period.

Paul Scott, chief executive of EPUT, said: “We fully accepted the findings of the Ombudsman’s report following its publication, and would like to offer our apologies again to the family involved.

“A number of actions have been taken to improve our safeguarding processes, including the development of clear referral pathways, the introduction of dedicated safeguarding professionals within our Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, and increased safeguarding supervision and training for staff.”

Both Suffolk County Council and the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Colchester General Hospital, also apologised to the family following the Ombudsman’s report but told the BBC they did not wish to comment further.

‘Destructive and wasteful’

Sophie is now back at home after obtaining what the family described as much more definitive treatment elsewhere.

She said: “Some of the things these professionals said, what my family was doing to me, which were completely untrue, makes me feel physically sick.”

“I think we are evidence of ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’,” said Cathy.

Her husband is still angry: “If you want to know what this did, it taught me hate, that’s what it did.

“I hate them. I hate all of the institutions that we were involved with in that period.

“And that is a destructive and wasteful emotion.”

The BBC has changed the names of the family members at their request to protect their identities.