Sheila Oliver's Campaigning Website

Email sent 22/08/2009 at 08.32

Sir

So in December 2005 it was £7.5 million but by 20th February 2006 it was £8 million. Why the further jump in just 2 months?
Kind regards

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 22/08/2009 at 07.24

Dear Mr Majothi

So, we see from the attached that the school is to be 3443m2 @ £1650 = £5,680,950 on 12th December 2005 as per documents obtained after a great fight from NPS but given to the Executive Committee on 10th March 2008 following turly vexatious questions by me an explanation the massive cost increase states the school is to be 3185m2 @ £1450 square metres. There might be a logical explanation for how a reduction in size and cost per square metre could be given as justification for a rise in cost. It is just that I wanted to be told it and understand it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent by me to Anwar Majothi on 20th August 2009 at 18.30

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, the cost of the school as per the attached document 217 is £1,450 per sq metre. The first line in document 216 is the area has increased from 2600 sq m to 3185 m2. That's an extra 585m2 times £1,450 = £848,250, so why £1.05 million?

A bit further down an extra 167m2 for Sport England which times £1450 is £242,150, so why £280,000?
As I say, I may be wrong. I am not very good at maths. But if I am right, then why have I been prevented from pointing this fact out to the Council for over 18 months?

This, however, is only a minor financial anomaly compared to the others, which I will inform you of once we have sorted this one out.

I really look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Sheila
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent  by me to Mr Majothi on 20th August 2009 at 16.42

Dear Mr Majothi

In February 2008 I asked a question at the full Council meeting of the Leader about financial anomalies regarding Harcourt Street. He promised me an answer. When by July I had heard nothing, despite reminders, I sent an official complaint in to the Monitoring Officer. I received no acknowledgment. By November I sent a registered post reminder to the Council's Solicitor. I heard nothing. I asked again at the Executive meeting in, I think, November 2008 (I can check the exact date), I was promised a reply; none came. By the following February, exactly a year after my first request, I was told I would be getting no response and I got this ludicrous FOI ban again. I am also now banned from asking questions in council meetings on the subject, which is an abuse of my human right to question elected representatives.

I want to know why the official complaint and the reminder were not acknowledged.

I know you will say the matter has been dealt with by the Audit Commission. It hasn't - I was under a FOI ban (again) at the time, now overturned so presumably totally illegal. Since then I have had access to documents which show quite serious financial irregularities and/or failure to even question frighteningly sprialling costs. I merely want access to information and documents to enable me to look into these strange financial irregularities involving several millions of pounds.
The illegal taking of public open space is another matter. I am happy to go into that if you wish. I am also banned from accessing documents regarding possible corruption regarding planning in the area in the 1980s. My concern is that if planning in Stockport was corrupt in the 1980s, when and by what means did it stop being corrupt? I have lots of documents - I require more to check into this further.

As I understand it as I have raised this issue of possible fraud, and had I had access to documents when I asked we might have been able to dismiss this as a possibility but I wasn't, then you have a duty under the Council's fraud policy to investigate it. I don't say definitely there is fraud - I merely want to examine the documents and the Council has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent me. I do represent over 800 people in the area. This is evidenced in the 440 statutory objections to the CPO, the 500 letters of objection at planning (every one ignored), the large number of claims for the footpaths, the 320 people who will be claiming a reduction in their council tax should the dangerous plans go ahead, the hundreds of complaints to the Standards Board about the actions of councillors. The Council has copies of all these. Please don't make me out to be a lone lunatic.
I can send you my original set of questions if you wish. I don't have a lot of confidence in your desire to sort out complaints, but am prepared to suspend disbelief.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sheila

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent  by me to Mr Majothi 20th August 2009 at 16.16

Dear Mr Majothi

ICO reference: FS50205853

Firstly, may I say how offensive I found the comments by Ms Re and, I think, you in her recent email. I am a respected environmental campaigner nationally, have appeared on two Radio 4 programmes, Channel 4's Dispatches, in The Observer, the Mail, the Guardian, News at Ten, Greater Manchester Radio, Granada Reports and Channel M.

I supplied vital information, using the FOIA, to Friends of the Earth which was then submitted in their document requesting a Competition Commision inquiry into abuses by supermarkets. I also asked a FOI request of the Highways Agency the response to which had questions asked in Parliament and which led to an National Audit Office inquiry which exposed £3 billion of waste at the Highways Agency. I have exposed that £870,000 sustainable transport money was left by this Council lying in Sainsbury's bank account for almost a decade and had removed 22 lorry loads of soil contamined with heavy metals from a housing development. I helped expose the true cost of the SEMMMS roads as not £425 million but £1 billion. I have done much, much more. I represent over 800 people in North Reddish, which I am in a position to prove.

How dare the two of you public servants make those comments? It is a pity you yourself couldn't have done your own job a little better regarding Mr. Parnell, and then the taxpayer wouldn't be facing a bill of presumably hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I shall respond to your comments below in another email, but don't you dare speak to me like that again.

Yours

Sheila

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 22nd August 2009 at 0933

Dear Mr Majothi

From the Harcourt Street Highlight report for period 15/3/06 - 14/05/06
"Aspirations continue to exceed budget provision and at this stage the scheme is undeliverable if the funding (or Brief) is not revisited."

Highlight report for period 15/3/06 - 14/5/06
"Funding shortfall will lead to ultimate project failure if not addressed i.e., unable to enter into contract". This was when the cost was circa £8.6 million - it is now circa £10 million.

From the Fir Tree Consultation with Governors 06/07/05
"There was concern from the governors that families in the Fir Tree area will have difficulty in getting to the proposed new site. The governors felt the outreach work would need to be increased as they felt parents from the school would not walk to the new facilities. The governors supports a new school but would wish the site to be in the Fir Tree community"

How much has the outreach work been costed at?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why on earth would Majothi class this as "vexatious". Did he even investigate this matter before swiping it off his desk?

Email sent 23/09/2009 at 14.14

Dear Mr Majothi


As I understand it the Council's Fraud and Irregularity Response Procedure states:-

2. Definition
2.1 Fraud is defined within the Fraud Act 2006 as:
"Activity aimed at securing a gain, causing a loss or exposing somebody to a risk of loss, through false representation, failing to disclose information or through abuse of position."

2.2 Crucially, under the new Fraud Act no gain or loss actually has to happen for a fraud to occur, the act of fraud is entirely defined by the actions or intent of the individual.

2.3 For the purposes of this procedured, the term fraud will be used to cover both fraud and corruption and may also encompass other irregularities.

I note the procedure goes on to list what further action the Council has to take in these circumstances.

I look forward to receiving your comments regarding the above and the action you propose to take regarding the information I have sent you and the further information I have yet to send.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Majothi

As a result of the Fraud and Irregularities policy issues we are trying to sort out between us, I think it vital the terms and conditions of the 100% derelict land grant in respect of the above-mentioned land are sent to me.

Any refusal to disclose will be submitted to the Audit Commission. I have asked this before but been ignored. As you will recall I sent you a docment in which the Greater Manchester Council complained to Stockport Council that this land had been taking for housing when it shouldn't have, that the Development Plan had not been agreed by GMC as should have happened and there was no consultation with local people. In the light of the above, the terms and conditions of the Derelict Land Grant should be disclosed.

I look forward to hearing from you

Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent on 23/08/2009 at 19.15

Dear Mr Majothi

In the early 1980s I believe the land at Mill Lane/Harcourt Street, Barlow Fold was in the town plan as public open space. Housing was built on the site following a meeting held behind closed doors involving one senior council officer and one senior councillor. Greater Manchester Council did not approve the use of this land for housing and I believe no consultation was held with local people concerning the change of designation as housing land. Greater Manchester Council was very annoyed at this.
I asked a FOIA question regarding this and the information was not disclosed to me. I mentioned the question of possible corruption, as I recall, and I wanted access to the documents myself to check. It would appear that in those circumstances the Council should have disclosed those documents under its Fraud policy.
Apparently the formal adoption procedure had not been applied to the local plan
I would be very grateful if you would also look into the above.
I attach a document regarding this - I have others.
More to follow.....
Yours

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was Mr Majothi covering up fraud to too lazy to investigate this, instead making the defamatory "vexatious" accusation about me to the Information Commissioner?

Email sent by me on 24/08/2009 at 20.44 with the attachment below.

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached.

The new centre was to provide 78 nursery places. We have seen that the birth rate in the area is rising. The nursery places now to be provided at the proposed children's centre are around 50. I assume this is because the site is too small for purpose, in which case the school should not be going on this site.

Given all I have sent you so far, I am starting to smell a pretty strong rat.

Your comments please.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/final-bell-for-nursery-as-closure-fight-878888

I was correct about the nursery places.

Is it "vexatious" to question why I was supposed to provide a map costing £388.40 for my village green application, when the Council Planning Department told me they could supply just such a map to the Council (but not to me) at a cost of £5?

Email sent by me 22nd of August 2009 at 17.48 with the attachment below.

Dear Mr Majothi

When I have finished sending this evidence I shall write an explanatory covering letter and send what I have sent you to the media, the Standards Board and the Audit Commission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 23/08/2009 at 12.44

Dear Mr Majothi


Please see the attached. As if all I had outlined previously hadn't been bad enough, we now learn that although £6.9 million for this school is to come from the sale of redundant school land, due to the economic downturn the sale of these assets is not proceeding as it should. I have asked for background details - but everything has to be kept secret and I am vexatious for even asking.

I look forward to your comments

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 22/08/2009 at 19.00

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached. It is implied by Ms Sager when I raise genuine and correct concerns about the funding that all is well, when in fact we have seen from the Agenda for pre-meeting minutes 30th March 2007 that there is obvious concern regarding funding. There was financial concern prior to this letter too. Was Ms Sager telling the truth?

Somehow, I think you are all going to be left with egg on your faces, or maybe even some of you spending more time with your families, for banning me for being ueber-vexatious. Please, please don't throw me into the prickly briar patch ;o)

Yours

Mrs Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 23/08/2009 at 18.42

Dear Mr Majothi

I wasn't there but local people tell me that at the packed angry public meeting held by the Council where the vast majority of people were against the scheme, at the end of the meeting the Council officer stated: I can see you are all broadly in favour - and closed the meeting. I am sure I could provide sworn testimony to that effect.

Therefore, I would think it pertinent for the Council to disclose any letters etc from people in favour of the school going on the Harcourt Street site and also any letters in favour of the school going on Harcourt Street from the planning meeting. There were over 500 letters of objection and two petitions of over 500 names. I have trawled the Hygarth House files and I couldn't see any letters in favour on the system. 500 is a huge number and every one completely discounted at the planning meeting.

More evidence to follow.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 30/09/2009 at 18.27

Dear Mr Majothi

How much will the expert monitoring of the gas venting systems in the proposed school and playground cost over the 25 year lifetime of this school? Or, won't the Council bother?

Kind regards

Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 23/08/2009 at 19.34

Dear Mr Majothi


Please see the attached. The Council can't pretend to have any public support when they talk of the "public hostility". And that caused more worries over the financial impact of the scheme. When I asked questions regarding the CPO, I was banned from having any information. A further cover-up, one would have to assume. Why, then wasn't the Fir Tree site given reasonable consideration instead?

Yours

Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1589690_council-bosses-to-spend-74m-on-building-work-to-beat-stockport-classroom-crisis

One year after its opening the school places situation in North Reddish hits crisis point. They knew all along the school was being built too small.  All the time I was questioning this with them they knew it was too small.  It is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act to deliberately cause someone a loss. This is what they have done and in the full knowledge that I was correct in what I was saying, Majothi branded me vexatious to the Information Commissioner. This was a defamatory action.

Email sent 23/08/2009 at 12.27

Dear Mr Majothi

The Council has not complied with the Acceptable Use Policy with regards to myself.
I have been called a liar, rude and offensive and generally spoken to in public meetings as if I were a piece of dirt. I believe some emails (if not all) were centrally monitored, yet the Council has stated that it does not centrally monitor emails. It is an offence to tell lies under the FOIA.

I have had my personal details and signature put up on the Council's website for months. When the Council was informed of this fact it did nothing to remove those details and was in contravention of the Data Protection Act.
I shall be pursuing this matter with the Council's insurers. If I am further declared vexatious on 1st September, when I have been trying time after time for well over 18 months to draw the Council's attention to financial irregularities and the Council has been guilty of maladministration, then that makes my case even stronger. We will see what the Audit Commission has to say regarding what has gone on.

Please may I have your comments.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

Stockport Councillor Information— Acceptable Use Policy
This Acceptable Use Policy defines the purposes for which the councillor cannot use the site. In summary these are:-
the introduction of content that may result in actions for libel, defamation or other claims for damages
processing personal data other than for the purpose stated at the time of capture
the promotion of any political party or campaigning organisation
the promotion personal financial interests or commercial ventures
personal campaigns
using the site in an abusive or hateful manner

Further details are given below.

1. DEFAMATION
A defamatory statement is one that causes an adverse effect on a person’s reputation. It must be published to a third person and refer to the defamed individual. Libel, which is a form of defamation, is the publication of a statement which exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, trade or profession in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
Councillors may not use their stockportcouncillors.info website to publish defamatory statements or material. Anyone who believes that they have been defamed by a Councillor will be able to take legal action directly against the Councillor concerned. The relevant legislation is the Defamation Act 1996 and the full text can be found at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm

A Councillor is only permitted to publish information in the context of the councillor’s official role in respect of matters of general public interest.

Councillors have been provided with the tools to edit their stockportcouncillors.info website by Stockport Council and are responsible for the content of their own stockportcouncillors.info website. Stockport Council is not responsible for approving content put on to Councillors’ websites. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Council does not authorise or in any way sanction the publication of statements which might be construed as defamatory.

2. DATA PROTECTION
In managing a website, Councillors may receive comments, enquiries or complaints from members of the public. Visitors to the site may register to receive occasional mailings. Councillors may refer to (or publish) material that is based upon information drawn from the Council or obtained from external sources. All such personal information should be treated with care and respect for relevant data protection law.

Anyone processing personal data must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They say that data must be:
fairly and lawfully processed;
processed for limited purposes;
adequate, relevant and not excessive;
accurate;
not kept longer than necessary;
processed in accordance with the data subject's rights;
secure;
not transferred to countries without adequate protection.

Personal data covers both facts and opinions about the individual. It also includes information regarding the intentions of the data controller towards the individual. The definition of processing incorporates the concepts of 'obtaining', holding' and 'disclosing'.
Further details about these eight principles can be found at: http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/dpr/dpdoc.nsf
Also please see the Council’s Privacy Policy which is available at: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/content/councildemoc/foidp/?a=5441?
The Data Protection Act applies, and the full text of the 1998 Act can be found at: http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm
The Councillor confirms that he or she has read the council’s own policy and code on data protection and accepts the provisions of it.
3. POLITICAL PUBLICITY
Because all stockportcouncillors.info websites are funded by Stockport Council, Councillors may not use their website to promote political campaigns and advocate political stances on issues. They may not use the site to promote a political party or persons identified with a political party. They may not use it to promote or oppose a view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable of the view of one political party and not of another.
Section 4 of the 1986 Local Government Act enabled the Secretary of State to issue a Code of Practice on Local Authority publicity. The original Code was amended in 2001. The Code was made more flexible in relation to publicity about individual councillors and the relevant paragraphs are:-
“Publicity about individual councillors may include the contact details, the positions they hold in the Council (for example a member of the Executive or Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee) and their responsibilities. Publicity may also include information about individual councillors’ proposals, decisions and recommendations only where this is relevant to their position and responsibilities within the council. All such publicity should be objective and explanatory and whilst it may acknowledge the part played by individual councillors as holders of particular positions in the council, personalisation of issues or personal image-making should be avoided.
Publicity should not be, or liable to misrepresentation as being, party political. Whilst it may be appropriate to describe policies put forward by an individual councillor which are relevant to her/his position and responsibilities within the council, and to put forward his/her justification in defence of them, this should not be done in party political terms, using political slogans, expressly advocating policies of those of a particular political party, or directly attacking policies and opinions of other parties, groups or individuals”.
Councillors may use the ‘My Politics’ section of their website to link to external websites of a political nature.
4. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT RESTRICTIONS
During election times (from the ‘notice of an election’ to the election itself), most parts of Councillors’ websites will be suspended. Visitors will still, however, be able to contact them through the website.
5. OTHER STATUTORY ISSUES
Care should be taken to ensure compliance with Local Government legislation and Local Authority’s policies on the following issues:-
The particular legislative requirements relating to discrimination/incitement to racial hatred etc. (Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001 & Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000)
Publication of obscene material (Obscene Publications Act 1959, Protection of Children Act 1978, Criminal Justice Act 1988)
The text of all legislation can be found at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts.htm#acts

6. ELECTED MEMBERS CODE OF CONDUCT
Stockport Council has specific provisions that govern the conduct of elected members as an elected representative. Their use of stockportcouncillors.info websites could breach that Code of Conduct. The stockportcouncillors.info websites should not be used to breach these rules or any local protocols.

On a general level:-
The site must not be used in a way that will bring Councillors or their Local Authority into disrepute
The site must promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, treating others with respect and not to do anything which compromises the impartiality of those who work for or on behalf of the authority.
To treat Local Government Officer’s recommendations or known views impartially
Councillors must not disclose information given to them in confidence or information acquired, which they believe, is of a confidential nature without the consent of a person authorised to give it.
Councillors must not use their stockportcouncillors.info website to disclose information which the council has considered in exempt session, or which they are on notice is confidential for any other reason.
Councillors must not use their stockportcouncillors.info website to secure personal advantage or secure use for themselves or others of the resources of the authority (for instance, by advertising a commercial service or by using the site to encourage the Local Authority to purchase a particular item or service)

7. TAINTING OF DECISION MAKING THROUGH BIASED/CLOSED MINDS
Councillors who are in positions of determining quasi-judicial processes, particularly planning and licensing applications, or determining the outcome of consultation exercises must exercise care to keep an open mind on issues which he or she may be required to make decisions.

The use of individual websites to set out a clear position on a particular issue could well provide evidence of bias based on a particular personal interest or view, or a closed mind. This would demonstrate the artificiality of the councillor then purporting to consider openly all issues in the determination of that matter.

8. TO HAVE REGARD TO ALL RELEVANT ADVICE WHEN REACHING DECISIONS AND TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISIONS.
Councillors must give an accurate and even-handed account of discussions or processes that lead to decisions being taken. For example, they must not give a one-sided account of the reasons for a planning application being refused.
All Rights Reserved Stockport MBC 2007.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 23/08/2009 at 13.06

Dear Mr Majothi


Attached is the Harcourt Street Risk Register - the last one I was allowed to see before the strange ban was put back in place. You will see the high risk of costs and delay (in red) presented by the issue of drainage and contamination remediation.
I asked under the FOIA the estimated drainage and contamination remediation costs, to be told they were impossible to work out at that point. A short time later those figures were put before the Executive Meeting. I asked to see how those figures were arrived at. This was, of course, refused under the strange ban imposed.
What is worrying - especially post Corby - is that not one contamination pit was dug over the proposed site of the school, which is directly over the old tip intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974. The Council states it has complied with BS10175 in regards to this. It hasn't!

Have the contamination remediation costs been properly worked out or was the figure put before the Executive for drainage and contamination remediation (which could cost millions) merely plucked out of thin air?

I look forward to hearing your comments

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 04/09/2009 at 06.27

Dear Mr Majothi

I note from last night's full council meeting (3/9/09) that the Council is still refusing to comply with its own fraud and irregularities policies and the Fraud Act 2006. I asked for documents to be disclosed with regards to the financial anomalies of several million pounds regarding Harcourt Street, including a presumed miscalculation of over a quarter of a millon pounds in the explanation to the Executive Committee of the massive rise in costs of this scheme.

The Council is continuing to fail to comply with the law and its own policies. I shall draw this latest transgression to the attention of the Audit Commission and the Standards Board.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver
FOIC Stockport

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 11/09/2009 at 06.40

Dear Mr Majothi


I note you have failed to respond to me regarding the details of financial irregularities involving several millions of pound. Under the Council's own fraud and financial irregularities policies and under the Fraud Act 2006, the Council must disclose all documents regarding the finance of this issue. The time of the Information Commission is again being wasted by this Council in its refusal to comply both with the law and its own policies.

Your failure to disclose these documents will be brought to the attention of the Audit Commission.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver
Freedom of Information Campaigner, Stockport

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Majothi

I forgot to include you - you have covered up a multi million pound fraud and this is an absolute gift to the enemies of the LibDems.

Perhaps in future (if you have one) you will try to act honestly.

Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Oliver
To: FOI Officer
Cc: cllr.sue.derbyshire@stockport.gov.uk ; cllr.iain.roberts@stockport.gov.uk ; Cllr Stuart Bodsworth ; Cllr Martin Candler ; Cllr Mark Weldon ; Cllr Kevin Hogg ; Cllr John Smith ; Cllr John Pantall ; Cllr David White ; Tim Watkinson ; barry khan ; eamonn.boylan@stockport.gov.uk
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: FOI request - Toxic Waste Dump School - no sporting facilities - 5721 Response - You are complicit in a multi million pound fraud.
Dear FoI Officer
I think you need to consider your actions. You are instrumental in covering up a mult-million pound fraud. This school one year after opening is not big enough. A new school will have to be opened at large cost to the council taxpayer. The Council knew that back in 2006 that it was not big enough (evidence on my website)
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school--1.html
So, why was it built?
You have committed and continue to commit an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, as have Khan, Re, Houston, Weldon, Boylan, Majothi, Candler, Hogg, Derbyshire, Bodsworth, Roberts, Pantall, Schulz, Re et al and I have sent the details to every Tory MP who despises the LibDems. If I were you I should keep careful evidence of who instructed you to be complicit in this fraud in a very safe place. Obviously you haven't taken the kickbacks to get this school built, but you are covering up for the person who has. This was virtually the only school to be built in England and it was deliberately built too small. The enemies of the LibDems will have a field day with that, and I don't know what the dozy District Auditor was up to letting this through on the nod.
Sheila
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
B
2 Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is
under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
5 “Gain” and “loss”
(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance
with this section.
(2) “Gain” and “loss”—
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things
in action and other intangible property).
(3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting
what one does not have.
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: FOI Officer ; 'Sheila Oliver'
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: FOI request - Toxic Waste Dump School - no sporting facilities - 5721 Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 5721).
As you have previously been informed, your requests for information about the school at Harcourt Street (Vale View Primary School) are considered to be vexatious under section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 and manifestly unreasonable under Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will not receive a response. This decision has been through the Council’s internal review process and was upheld. It has also been investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office at your request, on two occasions; the ICO upheld the Council’s decision in both its Decision Notices.
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

http://www.stockport.gov.uk
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 21 May 2012 20:34
To: FOI Officer
Cc: DAVID PENKETHMAN; Jennifer Williams; Jennifer Williams; Peter Devine; Andrew Gwynne - MP
Subject: FOI request - Toxic Waste Dump School - no sporting facilities
Dear FoI Officer
If this request is refused, please don't let your name be on the bottom, as this will be put up on my website and forwarded to Private Eye. Make sure the person refusing the request puts their own name to it:-
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/
Why are there no sporting facilities yet at the Toxic Waste Dump School in North Reddish?
Please see the attached documentary evidence in support of the validity of my question.
Kind regards
Sheila

The Olympic torch will be visiting Stockport on Sunday 24 June, to find out how you can get involved visit www.stockport.gov.uk/2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 31/08/2009 at 07.01

Dear Mr Majothi

From the Fraud Act 2006:-

Fraud
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
I think what has gone on over Harcourt Street and possibly over Mr Parnell, who suffered a financial loss, is covered above.
I look forward to your comments.
Yours
Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Majothi

Last night Goddard said I should have reported the financial irregularities and they couldn't answer them if they didn't know what they were.

I asked a council question in February 2008 and he promised me a reply over the financial anomalies. When I had not received a reply by July I wrote to Scullion. When by November I had heard nothing I sent a registered post reminder to Khan. When I got no acknowledgement from him I again asked Goddard in the full Council meeting and he promised me a response. When I had heard nothing by February 2009 I again asked Goddard in a full council meeting and he told me I would never be given an answer. I have sent hundreds possibly of reminders, which no doubt has led to my being branded now Vexatious With Knobs On. Your comments please before I take this to the Standards Board regarding Goddard and Weldon.

Also, please send me the advice the Council claims to have received from the LGO regarding vexatious council taxpayers. I am asking this under the FOIA.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 22/08/2009 at 18.24

Dear Mr Majothi

In the above mentioned document it states:

"Suspected frauds or irregularities may come to light through a variety of channels, but in all cases will be reported to the Chief Internal Auditor" I have repeatedly tried to raise the issue of financial anomalies, with an official complaint and reminders to the Council Solicitor totally ignored. The Audit Committee refused to allow me to bring these facts to their attention. Please show me evidence that the Chief Internal Auditor had these issues brought to his attention and let me see the written evidence of his decision.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 25/08/2009 at 07.18

Dear Majothi

I shall cc this to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate - a very kind, efficient and helpful lady.
The Council has recently told the Planning Inspectorate that the funds are in place for the proposed school at Harcourt Street. We have seen from the multitudinous documents sent you over the past few days this is not and never has been the case.
The Council's Fraud and Irregularity policy and the Fraud Act would seem to indicate that a loss should not deliberately be caused. The moving of the footpaths over Harcourt Street (which were never properly established in the first place because people weren't given any opportunity to object) will cost the Planning Inspectorate and the taxpayer quite a lot of money. The footpaths don't need to be moved if the school is not going there, and it would seem very unlikely ever to be built.

As the Council has implied all the funding is in place, please let me see exact details of this. The last I heard was £6.9 million was to come from the sale of redundant school land, which due to the economic downturn was not realising the sums the Council had hoped and expected.

I very much look forward to hearing from you. I note from the attached Guardian clipping that public sector inefficiency is costing the taxpayer £54.8 billion, although possibly not all of that is wasted by Stockport Council. When I have your reply I will be off to the Audit Commission with it.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 22/08/2009 at 08.07

Sir

Again, by May 15th 2006 the cost had gone up to £8.20 million. Why? Who else queried this except me? No-one that I could find. So, I make that a rise of £2,700.000 in six months. Absolutely astounding. And you say I am vexatious in asking these questions. One for the Standards Board and the Audit Commission, I think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Majothi

So by May 2006 the Council is admitting the scheme is £2.40 million over the available funding.

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 30/08/2009 at 18.21

Dear Mr Majothi

How much will it cost the Council over the 25 year time span of the school to police the traffic regulation orders? Or, weren't the Council going to bother?

Kind regards

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 15/09/2009 at 12.20

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached - just another example of my long attempt to get these issues of financial irregularities dealt with by Stockport Council. When I made those comments action should have been taken to investigate - what actually happened was that I was silenced.

Regarding Mr Parnell, he has been sent to a particularly nasty prison maybe till next January. He told me in the past if he was sent to prison he would go on hunger strike and his solicitor told me yesterday he had been begging Mr. Parnell to eat. Should Mr Parnell die in prison, there will be some very searching questions asked about what has gone on and how his complaint was not dealt with over a ten year plus period. I have no doubt you will have some questions to answer at any subsequent inquest or inquiry. Not you alone - Schulz, Goddard, Webb, Khan, Weldon et al - but you will be called to account too.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner
Free Mr Parnell, victim of a corrupt council

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 02/09/2009 at 05.50

Dear Mr Majothi

It was stated at last night's Executive Committee how fair the proposed Vexatious with Knobs on policy was to be. In the light of that I wish to appeal, due to the fact that Khan, Weldon, Schulz, Webb, Scullion, Candler, Goddard and Sager failed to comply with the Council's policy on fraud and financial irregularities for well over 18 months, putting me to considerable effort and leading me to be branded a liar, rude, offensive and vexatious, which is defamatory.

In the light of all the evidence I have sent you I expect and answer, which will be sent to the Standards Board and the Audit Commission. If I don't get any repsonse within a reasonable time that will be pointed out too. We can't wait a decade for a reply as has happened in the past.

I look forward to hearing from you

Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 02/09/2009 at 06.11

Dear Sirs
Just in case you need a reminder:-

Stockport Council
Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy
Author: Corporate Governance Group Version: 1.3 Date 9th March 2009 Status: Approved

1. Introduction
1.1 As part of its vision to create an attractive and thriving Stockport, the Council is committed to safeguarding public funds and maintaining the highest standards of probity. In order to fulfil this commitment, it is crucial that the Council’s resources are properly safeguarded and the manner in which these resources are used is underpinned by a secure and controlled environment.
1.2 Stockport Council takes a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and will take appropriate action to investigate all suspected incidents of fraud or corruption. The Council is also committed to taking disciplinary and / or legal action against any person found to have committed fraud against the Authority and to recover any losses sustained.
1.3 This Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy sets out the Council’s commitment to creating an anti-fraud culture and maintaining high ethical standards in its use of public funds. The policy outlines the Council’s approach for dealing with suspected irregularities and the roles and responsibilities of employees and elected members in maintaining the required standards of probity.
The policy is underpinned by a Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and a Fraud and Irregularities Response Procedure and these documents should be read together with regard for one another.
Scope
2.5 The policy applies to:
 All Council employees (permanent and temporary, including employees working within schools)
 Elected members
 Agency workers
 Consultants
2.6 In addition, the Council expects that all stakeholders should maintain the highest standards of integrity in their dealings with the Council. This means being honest and open in their own dealings with the Council and being proactive in reporting genuine suspicions of fraud, irregularity or improper conduct by other Council stakeholders (see above list). Stockport Council expects that employees of partner organisations working with the Council will have an awareness of the Council’s Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy, but recognises that will be subject to their own organisations’ policies and procedures.
2.7 The Council also has in place a Benefit Fraud Prosecution Policy setting out how both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud will be dealt with. Any employee of Stockport Council suspected of committing
Council Tax or Housing Benefit fraud will be dealt with under the Benefit Fraud Prosecution Policy as well as this policy and its associated procedures.
The Policy also covers the areas of election fraud of insurance-related fraud. Any employee of Council found to have attempted to commit insurance-related fraud against the Council will be dealt with both under the arrangements for investigating insurance fraud and under this policy.
Definition
The Fraud Act 2006 defines fraud as activity aimed at securing a gain, causing a loss or exposing somebody to a risk of a loss, through false representation, failing to disclose information or through abuse of position. Crucially under the new Fraud Act, no gain or loss actually has to happen for a fraud to occur, the act of fraud is entirely defined by the actions or intent of the individual.
Corruption
4.1 Corruption may be defined as any conduct which amounts to:
 The offering, giving or accepting of an inducement or reward or indication of possible future reward, which would influence the actions taken by the Council, its members or officers.
 Dishonesty or breach of trust by a public officer in the course of his / her duty;
 The use of undue influence such as bribery or blackmail, which includes the use of election fraud. Any person who directly accepts, agrees of offers to accept any gratification from any other person to benefit him / herself or any other person is guilty of the crime of corruption.
 Hiring or promoting an individual inappropriately, or unduly influencing the hiring or promoting of an individual or otherwise inappropriately influencing the level of remuneration of an individual.
The person who makes the offer or inducement to another to commit a corrupt practice is also guilty of the crime of corruption. Although there is an active and a passive side to the crime, both parties are equally guilty of corruption.
Corporate Framework
5.1 This policy operates within the overall corporate framework designed to ensure appropriate standards of conduct from Council employees and other stakeholders. This Anti-Fraud Policy should be read in the context of the overall corporate framework. Other relevant policies and procedures include:
 Council Constitution
 Code of Conduct for Officers
 Code of Conduct for Elected Members  Financial Procedure Rules  Contract Procedure Rules  Disciplinary Procedure  Fraud, corruption and irregularity procedures  System of Internal Control  Local procedure rules  Scheme for Financing Schools  Confidential Reporting Policy (Whistleblowing)  Council Meeting Procedure Rules  Policy Framework and Budget Procedure Rules  Executive Procedure Rules  Officer Employment Procedure Rules
6. Mechanism for Reporting Suspicions of Fraud or Corruption
6.1 Staff should report suspicions through their line manager or direct to the Chief Internal Auditor or Group Auditor. Where line managers receive allegations of fraud from staff, these should be reported to the Chief Internal Auditor.
6.2 The Council also has in place avenues for staff to report suspicions of fraud and corruption through the Confidential Reporting Policy. Matters will be dealt with where possible in confidence and in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. This statute protects the legitimate personal interests of staff.
All referrals of suspected fraud, corruption or other irregularity will be referred to the Chief Internal Auditor for determination of the appropriate course of action.
Roles and Responsibilities
7.1 This section sets out the roles and responsibilities of groups and individuals within the Council to contribute to the effective management of fraud risk.
Corporate Director, Business Services (Section 151 Officer)
7.2 The Corporate Director, Business Services in his role as the Council’s Section 151 Officer has overall responsibility for establishing and maintaining a sound system of internal control. This system of internal control is designed to respond to and manage the whole range of risks that the Council faces. Managing fraud risk will be seen in the context of the management of this overall range of risks.
Corporate Governance Group
7.3 The Corporate Governance Group has responsibility for ensuring the Council has adequate counter-fraud arrangements in place. This covers:  An up to date Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy  A current Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy  A Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit prosecution Policy  An effective internal audit approach to provide assurance on the Council’s counter-fraud and corruption arrangements  A Fraud and Irregularity Response Procedure  Arrangements for the reporting and investigation of suspected frauds or irregularities
 Arrangements for ensuring that all employees are aware of the counter-fraud and corruption policy, strategy and reporting arrangements
Fraud and Irregularities Panel
7.4 The Council has established a Fraud and Irregularities Panel to take responsibility for ensuring that suspected frauds or irregularities are appropriately investigated and that the appropriate action is taken following the outcome of the investigation.
7.5 The Fraud and Irregularities Panel is responsible for:  Ensuring that a prompt and comprehensive investigation occurs in response to a suspected fraud or irregularity referral  Ensuring that appropriate legal or disciplinary action is taken against perpetrators of fraud  Ensuring that action is taken to recover Council assets where possible  Managing the dissemination of information about frauds to third parties  Ensuring that the weaknesses in procedures that allowed the fraud to occur are identified  Ensuring that appropriate action is taken to minimise the risk of

similar incidents in the future Council Employees

7.6 Every member of employees is responsible for;

 Acting with propriety in the use of Council resources and the handling and use of public funds.

 Conducting themselves in accordance with the seven principles of public life set out in the first report of the Nolan Committee ‘Standards in Public Life’. These are; selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
 Being alert to the possibility that unusual events or transactions could be indicators of fraud.
 Reporting details immediately through the appropriate channel if they suspect that a fraud has been committed or see any suspicious acts or events.
 Cooperating fully with the investigating officer where a fraud investigation is taking place.
7.7 Council employees are often a key element in the prevention and detection of fraud and the standards expected of Council employees are set out in the Code of Conduct for Officers. In addition, employees in certain professions will also be expected to abide by codes of conduct and / or ethics set out by their professional institutes eg Accountants, Architects, Engineers etc.
7.8 Fraud prevention, detection and reporting is the responsibility of all officers and members of the Council and this policy requires that all suspicions of fraud are reported to the Chief Internal Auditor. Reports may also be made under the Council’s Confidential Reporting (Whistleblowing) Policy to one of the named officers within the policy, however where a suspicion of fraud is reported, this should be referred to the Chief Internal Auditor for determination of the appropriate responsibilities for investigation.
7.9 Where an investigation concludes that there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct for Officers, disciplinary action may be taken under the Council’s Disciplinary Procedure.
7.10 Where criminal activity is found to have taken place, the matter may be referred to the police in accordance with the Council’s Fraud Response Procedures. The Council will also carry out its own investigation in order to determine whether disciplinary action is appropriate. Disciplinary action may be taken independently of any police decision to prosecute. The Council’s policy is to take recovery action to recoup any losses sustained through fraudulent acts by employees or other stakeholders.
Elected Members
7.11 The standards required of Elected Members are set out in:
The National Code of Local Government Conduct Local Government Act 1972 Local Authorities’ Members Interest Regulations 1992 The Council’s Constitution
7.12 Elected Members are required to comply with this policy and where suspicions of fraud are raised, these should be reported appropriately. Where there are concerns regarding the conduct of elected members, these should be reported to the Council’s Monitoring Officer or Deputy Monitoring Officer.
Audit Committee
7.13 The Audit Committee has responsibility for considering the effectiveness of the authority’s risk management arrangements, control environment and associated anti-fraud and anti-corruption arrangements. It is the role of the Audit Committee to ensure that actions are taken as appropriate to address risk-related issues identified by Internal and External Audit.
Standards Committee
7.14 The Standards Committee is responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by Councillors and co-opted members of the Council. The Committee is also responsible for monitoring the operation of the Code of Conduct and will deal with any report from the Monitoring Officer on any matter that is referred by an Ethical Standards Officer to the Monitoring Officer.
Senior Management
7.15 The Council’s senior management are responsible for:
 Ensuring an adequate system of internal control operates within their area of responsibility.
 Creating and maintaining an effective anti-fraud culture within their area of responsibility.
 Ensuring employees feel able to raise suspicions of fraud or irregularity in an environment of trust.
 Ensuring awareness of the Council’s counter-fraud policy and the corporate framework within which it operates.
 Ensuring their employees are adequately trained to operate within the Council’s policy framework.
 Ensuring their employees are appropriately trained to fulfil their responsibilities for reporting suspicious activities.
7.16 Where an investigation concludes that fraud or other irregularities have taken place, a report of the findings of the investigation will be presented in line with the Fraud Response Plan to the corporate Fraud Response Group. This group will determine the appropriate course of action. It is the responsibility of senior management to implement this action and lead any disciplinary or legal action.
Operational Management
7.17 Operational managers are responsible for implementing and maintaining an adequate system of internal control within their areas. This includes responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud. Management’s responsibility for maintaining adequate controls also includes the monitoring and reviewing of systems to ensure that controls are operating effectively. In addition, where frauds have occurred, management are responsible for implementing any additional controls to minimise the risk of future incidents.
7.18 Management are also responsible for training and development of employees to ensure they are aware of the Council’s policies and procedures and that they agree to operate within these parameters.
7.19 In addition, management are responsible for reporting concerns raised by their employees to the Chief Internal Auditor.
Internal Audit
7.20 Internal Audit is responsible for providing assurance that the Council has adequate and effective anti-fraud arrangements in place. Consequently, fraud or other irregularities may be identified during the course of routine audit work. Where this occurs, the auditor will discuss their concerns with their immediate line manager and the Chief Internal Auditor. The Chief Internal Auditor will then invoke the Council’s Fraud Response Plan where appropriate.
Where suspected fraud is referred to the Chief Internal Auditor, an initial assessment of the information available will be carried out and where appropriate the Fraud and Irregularities Response Procedure will be invoked.
Summary
8.1 This policy has set out the Council’s position on fraud and established the roles and responsibilities of Council stakeholders in contributing to creating a robust anti-fraud culture within the Authority. The policy is underpinned by an Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and a Fraud and Irregularities Response Procedure, both of which should be read in conjunction with this document.

Level 2 – Condensed Text
to be published on Participant’s website
Stockport Council is required by law to protect the public funds it administers. It may share information provided to it with other bodies responsible for auditing or administering public funds to prevent and detect fraud. The Audit Commission audits the accounts of Stockport Council and is also responsible for carrying out data matching exercises.
Data matching involves comparing computer records held by one body against other computer records held by either the same or another body to see how far they match. These records usually contain personal information. Computerised data matching allows potentially fraudulent claims and payments to be identified. Where a match is found, it indicates that there is an inconsistency which requires further investigation. No assumption can be made about whether an inconsistency is due to fraud, error or another explanation until an investigation is carried out.
The Audit Commission currently requires Stockport Council to participate in a data matching exercise to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud. The Council is required to provide particular sets of data to the Audit Commission for matching for each separate exercise. These are set out in the Audit Commission’s guidance which can be found at www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nfi.
Part 2A of the Audit Commission Act 1998 gives the Audit Commission the statutory power to request and use data in data matching exercises. This means that under the Data Protection Act 1998, neither Stockport Council nor the Audit Commission needs to obtain the consent of individuals involved to use their personal information in this way.
Data matching carried out by the Audit Commission is subject to a Code of Practice. This can be found at www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nfi/codeofdmp.asp.
For further information about the Audit Commission’s legal powers and the reasons why it matches particular information, please see www.auditcommission

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 30/08/2009 at 16.14

Dear Mr Majothi

Under the legally binding above mentioned agreement, 7 acres of public open space usable for ball games must remain on the former Jackson's Brickyards site off Mill Lane, North Reddish. The small pockets of land around the periphery of the site and the land at Barlow Fold cannot be included. Please let me know exactly where this 7 acres will be once the school is built or the exact legal process by which this agreement can be set aside.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards
Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 22/08/2009 at 18.10


Dear Mr Majothi

The Council stated it was cheaper to use the Harcourt Street site than the Fir Tree site. Please may I see the documentary evidence of this fact from the very start of this process. There must surely be documentary evidence as this claim was made by the Council.

At the Fir Tree site there would be no traffic regulation orders/work - £130,000, no CPO costs £70,000, no drainage costs - £75,000, no Services to install - £231,000, no contamination costs - goodness knows how many millions that could be, no Sport England costs - £600,000, no village green costs, no footpath diversion inquiry costs, no outreach costs.
As I understand it the Council has a legal duty to consider alternatives which might present better value to the Council taxpayer. Please provide evidence that a proper evaluation of the costs of putting the school on the Fir Tree site have been carried out.
Yours sincerely

Mrs Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 23/08/2009 at 12.38

Dear Mr Majothi

Please see the attached from Andrew Webb. I knew this to be a lie being told under the FOIA. I had already seen the documents some months previously and just wanted to re-read those and see any additions. Ms Sager seemed to be complicit in the making of this untrue statement.

How could it have possibly taken 84 hours - almost three working weeks of a council officer working full time - to read and redact what turned out to be about four folders. Why was this statement made? Was it to cover up the strange goings on which I have detailed in my previous emails? Why was no internal review carried out for 6 months, and that was only done when I humiliated the LibDems at Westminster. Otherwise, I would still be being ignored under the FOIA.

I look forward to hearing your explanation and sending it to the Audit Commission and the Standards Board with all this documentary evidence.

Yours

Sheila Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here to view next page