Sheila Oliver's Campaigning Website

Go to content

Main menu

Banned council taxpayers

Dodgy LibDems General

Dear Mrs Oliver,
I quote directly from your question last night. “ I have been banned from contacting council officers for two years of what I assume is a lifetime ban” that is a lie, you have been directed to one point of contact, the FIO officer. As usual you move the goalposts with this e-mail bringing in planning officers, however that was not your question last night. I am replying to your direct and specific allegation you make that you are banned from contacting council officers, you are not. I have received your other e-mail and that is now with the council legal team.
Your obedient servant at all times,
Dave.
Cllr Dave Goddard
Leader of Stockport Council
Town Hall, Stockport SK1 3XE
Tel: 0161 474 3302
Fax: 0161 474 3308
leader@stockport.gov.uk

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 10 November 2008 20:22
To: Leader
Subject: Am I a liar?
Dear Councillor Goddard
You called me a liar in tonight's public meeting. Please provide details.
I am banned because I can't contact any planning officer. Planning issues must be open. By the time Ms Naven replies after 20 days, the planning meeting has passed. This constitues an illegal ban.
You seemed terribly rattled tonight. It doesn't give a good impression. Have you tried yoga?
Lots of love
Sheila




Dear Ms Oliver
The Data Protection Act does not cover the dead, but there are more restrictions than just the DPA to disclosure of information on complaints made to the Local Government Ombudsman (Local Government Act 1974 as amended).
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk
NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

-----Original Message-----
From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 18 December 2008 21:44
To: FOI Officer; Hilary Pook
Cc: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Subject: Are the Dead covered by data protection?
Dear FOI Officer, Stockport Council/Ms Pook Local Ombudsman's Office
I would like to ask whether the lady from Stockport who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her young autistic son had made official complaints against Stockport Council/ to the Ombudsman or had been banned, as is currently happening to the parents of disabled children who raise serious issues about their care with Stockport Council. I will find out her name but firstly I want to know whether the Data Protection Act covers the dead or whether I would be able to see details of any complaints from her if they were lodged?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Sheila


Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1489).
The Council’s professional indemnity insurers are AIG via RMP.
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: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 24 December 2008 18:59
To: FOI Officer
Subject: FOI request
Dear Ms Naven
Please let me know the name of the insurers who provide professional indemnity cover for Mr Schultz and senior council officers.
Many thanks and kind regards
Sheila





Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1490).
Stockport Council considers this request to be vexatious; therefore in line with section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) we will not be complying with it.
You previously requested information about Council Taxpayers who are currently ‘banned’ from Council buildings or from contacting the Council. As an extension of this request, you also made reference to ‘the brick wall of the Council’s complaints procedure’ and the ‘vexatious complaints protocol’, alluding to the fact that the Council banned people with ‘legitimate concerns’ and ‘never troubled to un-ban them’. Continuing with this theme, you emailed on 18 th December 2008 stating:
‘…I would like to ask whether the lady from Stockport who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her young autistic son had made official complaints against Stockport Council/ to the Ombudsman or had been banned, as is currently happening to the parents of disabled children who raise serious issues about their care with Stockport Council. I will find out her name but firstly I want to know whether the Data Protection Act covers the dead or whether I would be able to see details of any complaints from her if they were lodged…’
The above serves to demonstrate the context and history behind your request below and suggests that it is the latest in a series of requests and correspondence which apparently aims to obtain information which you think will challenge and discredit the Children’s Social Care complaints process. The procedure is based on statute (The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006) and the ‘Policy on unacceptable actions by complainants’ was approved by the Executive in the usual transparent manner.
With the above in mind, if this is indeed the purpose of your request, there are more appropriate and less intrusive routes for you to pursue this challenge. It is clear from your email quoted above 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, your request is likely to distress any surviving 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 the individual requester. The Council does 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.
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: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 27 December 2008 18:33
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Alison Davies
Dear FOI Officer
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.
Kind regards
Sheila






Mrs Oliver
All complaints about Councillors are referred to the Monitoring Officer, who oversees their progress through the Standards Committee mechanism. I have therefore referred your email to him.
Regards
Jonathan
Jonathan Vali
Principal Democratic Services Officer
Chief Executive's Directorate
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
( 0161 474 3201
Fax: 0161 474 3240
* jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk
Please visit our website....click here

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 20 May 2009 19:27
To: Jonathan Vali
Cc: Cllr Dave Goddard; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Subject: Cllr Goddard
Dear Mr Vali
Thanks for your helpful letter dated 30th April 2009.
I can't find another contact address for Democratic Services, so I am sending this to you. If you are the wrong person, please forward it.
Councillor Goddard has repeatedly before witnesses called me a liar in council meetings. I have asked him to provide proof but he hasn't. Councillors aren't allowed to call each other liars, so why can he make unsubstantiated allegations about me? I find that galling especially from someone who has been named under parliamentary privilege.
I submitted a complaint to the Chair of the Standards Committee some time ago but have heard nothing. Would you please let me know where in the complaints system this currently is. I am guessing you should look in the wastepaper baskets.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sheila




Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1838).
We are unable to provide the information you have requested because it is exempt information under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Information which constitutes personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), where the personal data is that of the applicant i.e. you in this case, is exempt information under section 40(1) of the FOIA. Requests for such information must be considered under the DPA. On this basis, we can confirm that you have not been the subject of any surveillance authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Section 40(2) FOIA states that information which constitutes personal data as defined by the DPA is exempt from disclosure if its release would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. The information you requested i.e. any information about an individual other than you is personal data because it relates to and identifies a living individual. Disclosure of these personal data would be unfair; therefore it would contravene the first data protection principle which requires the Council to process personal data fairly. This means that the information is exempt and will not be provided.
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: 13 May 2009 17:17
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Acknowledgement
Dear Ms Naven
Well you haven't been bothering to acknowledge receipt of anything at all, so it must have slipped through. I look forward to the reply.
Kind regards
Sheila

----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Acknowledgement
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given reference FOI 1838. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request. Please note that we have no record of receiving your original email dated 21 st February which you have included below.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 06 May 2009 19:07
To: FOI Officer
Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fw: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

Dear Ms Naven
I note I have not received an acknowlegment regarding the above never mind an answer. You now have changed your story and say that I can ask questions other than regarding the school at Harcourt Street.
Please answer the question below.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Oliver
To: FOI Officer
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Dear Ms Naven
Has Stockport Council resorted to the above-mentioned legislation regarding Mr Parnell, the town hall protestor, or myself?
Tot zins
Sheila




Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing further to your email below.
Your request regarding Alison Davies (ref 1490) which is the subject of your complaint to the ICO below was responded to previously; the text of your original response is below for information:
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.
Our response was to this request; neither your request nor our response referred to any report as stated below. If you are requesting that we carry out an internal review in relation to your original request, please confirm this fact. If, on the other hand, you are now making a new request for the information set out below, please confirm this so your request can be considered.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council


From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 05 June 2009 14:39
To: FOI Officer
Cc: casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Subject: Fw: Response from ICO[Ref. FS50247042]
Dear Ms Naven
Please see below. I have asked many times regarding this but, as ever, been ignored.
So, I for the umpteenth time as you to reconsider your refusal of my request. One document I requested was the report put before a council committee on this case, which drew the conclusion the lady in question was mad. I should like to see this public-domain report please and then I will cross-reference it with the lady's medical records to see who actually decided she was mad.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From:
casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To:
sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: Response from ICO[Ref. FS50247042]
5th June 2009

Case Reference Number FS50247042

Dear Mrs Oliver
Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (re Alison Davies).
Thank you for your correspondence dated 06/05/09 in which you complain about Stockport MBC‘s decision not to release the information you requested. From the details you have provided, and the copy of the formal response from Stockport MBC dated 12/02/09 provided by them, it appears that you have not yet asked the Council to review the decision to refuse your request.
Before accepting complaints, the Commissioner generally expects complainants to allow public authorities the opportunity to respond to any arguments which applicants may make as to why the information they request should be released. We would therefore advise you to first ask the public authority to reconsider its refusal of your request. When doing so, it may be helpful if you respond to any specific reasons given by the public authority for refusing your request.
Although this case is now closed, please contact us again if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review.
If you have, in fact, exhausted the internal review procedure, please provide evidence of this so we can progress your complaint.
If you need to contact us again please quote the reference number from the top of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Dunn
FoI Case Officer
FoI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner’s Office


____________________________________________________________________




Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your email below. Contrary to your comments, the Council has already responded to your request on 16 th June and again on 19 th June 2009. Please find a copy of these responses attached.
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 08:50
To: FOI Officer
Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fw: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Response
Dear FoI Officer
The request below is overdue. Can you see a pattern emerging here?
Yours
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Oliver
To: FOI Officer
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL ; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Response
Ms Naven
You had me there for a minute. I am not asking for any personal information on Mr Parnell, just whether anti-terrorism legislation has been used against him. I assume the Council is not yet claiming he is a terrorist, so there can be no objection to letting me know if this has been used against him or not. You will not be disclosing any personal infomation about him.
Please answer the question.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1838).
We are unable to provide the information you have requested because it is exempt information under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Information which constitutes personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), where the personal data is that of the applicant i.e. you in this case, is exempt information under section 40(1) of the FOIA. Requests for such information must be considered under the DPA. On this basis, we can confirm that you have not been the subject of any surveillance authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Section 40(2) FOIA states that information which constitutes personal data as defined by the DPA is exempt from disclosure if its release would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. The information you requested i.e. any information about an individual other than you is personal data because it relates to and identifies a living individual. Disclosure of these personal data would be unfair; therefore it would contravene the first data protection principle which requires the Council to process personal data fairly. This means that the information is exempt and will not be provided.
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: 13 May 2009 17:17
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Acknowledgement
Dear Ms Naven
Well you haven't been bothering to acknowledge receipt of anything at all, so it must have slipped through. I look forward to the reply.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - Ref 1838 - Acknowledgement
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given reference FOI 1838. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request. Please note that we have no record of receiving your original email dated 21 st February which you have included below.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 06 May 2009 19:07
To: FOI Officer
Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fw: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Dear Ms Naven
I note I have not received an acknowlegment regarding the above never mind an answer. You now have changed your story and say that I can ask questions other than regarding the school at Harcourt Street.
Please answer the question below.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Oliver
To: FOI Officer
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Dear Ms Naven
Has Stockport Council resorted to the above-mentioned legislation regarding Mr Parnell, the town hall protestor, or myself?
Tot zins
Sheila




Dear Mrs Oliver,
There is no written dress code for Councillors.
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 Off
icer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 30 July 2009 18:56
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Dress code for councillors
Dear Ms Naven
Is there a written dress code for councillors?
Kind regards
Sheila






Dear Mrs Oliver,
Decisions to restrict access to Council buildings are taken on a case by case basis and are usually authorised by an Service Director, Corporate Director or a Headteacher, depending on the urgency of action required.
The Council also obtains injunctions against people for anti social behaviour which is governed by the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) and is almost always upon instructions from Stockport Homes Ltd as the conduct complained of must affect the housing management function of the Council.
As you have previously been informed, the Council does not keep a ‘register’, time limits depend on the process and we always allow a right of reply in respect of a ban which is not an injunction, upon receipt of which the decision to ban is reconsidered.
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: 03 August 2009 18:57
To: FOI Officer
Cc: mike carroll; MICHAEL PARNELL; Syd Lloyd; John Schultz; Leader
Subject: Goddard's refusal - FOI and EIR 2004 request
Dear Ms Naven
I asked Goddard this at tonight's Executive Meeting and his reply was: "No".
No register is kept of the apparently considerable number of council taxpayers who are deemed by this Council to be rude and offensive. Could you please explain the processes involved in keeping them away from council buildings, time limits of their bans, appeal processes and who initially decides to brand them as such.
For reasons of defamation I need to explore why I was publicly banned for 3 months from asking Council questions - apparently this is a breach of my human rights to question elected representatives. I believe I was banned because someone eavesdropped on an email I sent in which I mentioned Councillor Meikle's breasts, which are almost always on prominent, uncovered display at council meetings and presumably, as such, meant to be commented on.
So I need to understand the banning/rude offensive council taxpayer protocols and if these have been breached in my case - and I am guessing if they exist then they have - then that is yet more evidence for my defamation case.
Kind regards
Sheila

Dear Mrs Oliver,
Decisions to restrict access to Council buildings are taken on a case by case basis and are usually authorised by an Service Director, Corporate Director or a Headteacher, depending on the urgency of action required.
The Council also obtains injunctions against people for anti social behaviour which is governed by the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) and is almost always upon instructions from Stockport Homes Ltd as the conduct complained of must affect the housing management function of the Council.
As you have previously been informed, the Council does not keep a ‘register’, time limits depend on the process and we always allow a right of reply in respect of a ban which is not an injunction, upon receipt of which the decision to ban is reconsidered.
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: 03 August 2009 18:57
To: FOI Officer
Cc: mike carroll; MICHAEL PARNELL; Syd Lloyd; John Schultz; Leader
Subject: Goddard's refusal - FOI and EIR 2004 request
Dear Ms Naven
I asked Goddard this at tonight's Executive Meeting and his reply was: "No".
No register is kept of the apparently considerable number of council taxpayers who are deemed by this Council to be rude and offensive. Could you please explain the processes involved in keeping them away from council buildings, time limits of their bans, appeal processes and who initially decides to brand them as such.
For reasons of defamation I need to explore why I was publicly banned for 3 months from asking Council questions - apparently this is a breach of my human rights to question elected representatives. I believe I was banned because someone eavesdropped on an email I sent in which I mentioned Councillor Meikle's breasts, which are almost always on prominent, uncovered display at council meetings and presumably, as such, meant to be commented on.
So I need to understand the banning/rude offensive council taxpayer protocols and if these have been breached in my case - and I am guessing if they exist then they have - then that is yet more evidence for my defamation case.
Kind regards
Sheila





Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1379).
We are unable to respond to your request in its current form; however if you are able to refine your request we may be able to provide some relevant information. For example: How do you define ‘banned’? This could include those where the Council has withdrawn its permission for them to enter certain buildings; it could also include those who are excluded by the terms of an injunction or those who have entered into an undertaking not to enter Council buildings. Similarly, how do you define ‘Council building’? This could include civic buildings, Council offices, schools, housing offices etc. You have also not specified a time-period to which your request relates. Consequently, your request could incorporate a vast amount of records and circumstances which means we cannot answer it as it currently stands.
If you are able to refine your request, please do so. If we do not receive this clarification within 20 working days we will assume you no longer wish to proceed and will close your case.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council


From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 08 October 2008 20:35
To: FOI Officer
Cc: Peter Devine
Subject: Banned council taxpayers
Dear Ms Naven
Please may I know under the FOIA how many council taxpayers have now been banned from council buildings by this Kafkaesque council? I believe the lovely grandma with the autistic grandchild has been banned as well as Mr. Parnell. Are there any more?
Lots of love
Sheila




Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your email below and apologise for the delay.
The Service Manager of the Safeguarding Children Unit is Charlotte Ramsden.
Please note that Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) are carried out where children have died or received a life-threatening injury due to abuse or neglect; they are not carried out in relation to adult deaths except in some cases of homicide. Please also note that no information is held in relation to point seven because no such decision was made.
In relation to your remaining points: it is highly unlikely that information relating to individual cases would be disclosed in response to FOI requests. As I have previously explained to you, information disclosed in response to FOI requests is – in effect – disclosed to the public as a whole and not just to an individual requester. Unless the individuals involved consented to information about their cases being made available to the entire general public, it is unlikely that any such disclosures would be considered fair; therefore the information would not be provided to you.
Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 24 September 2009 06:17
To: FOI Officer
Cc: Cheryl Latham
Subject: Re: Your request for information - Ref FOI 2131 - Response
Dear Ms Naven
1) Regarding the reply below from Mystery Person -
The Service Manager, Safeguarding Children Unit, who is that, exactly?
2) The Serious Case Review found that the council's record keeping was inadequate or words to that effect, records were few and far between, a consultant asked for joint review but received no response from Social Services.
Were I to ask regarding Mr. Parnell, would I find that subsequent to the SCR, that full records of his concerns and minutes of meetings were kept? These are serious issues, even more so following the death of Andrea Adams, and we may yet have to deal with the death of Mr. Parnell.
3) "Reviews of services provided have been strengthened in order to ensure a better understanding of whether services are meeting needs" People are telling me that their severely disabled children are not having their needs assessed at all. Hmmmm, who to believe? So, if I can provide evidence that parents have raised serious issues about their disabled children, will you be able to provide me with documentary evidence of how the Council has addressed their concerns?
4) "Minutes of meetings are kept in the form of a Child in Need plan outlining the needs of the family, actions taken and progress made. The expectation is that these are distributed to those attending the meeting, and dates for review meetings are also agreed" Again, should I supply you with specific details regarding specific cases, will you be able to provide me with a CAF, Child in Need Plan for that instance? I would, of course, provide the necessary authorisation. It would seem a simple matter to verify whether these high ideals following these repeated and unncessary deaths are being adhered to or are all just pie in the sky.
5) "Multi-disciplinary records from the Child Development Centre are included in the child’s continuing health record". Again, people are telling me this isn't happening. Again, were I to refer to a specific case, would you be able to prove that this is being done?
6) "The use of the Common Assessment Framework including multi-agency Child in Need meetings have been rolled out through the Children’s Disability Partnership". Yet again, if this is the case, would you be able to prove this in a named case?
7)
Which council officer decided this appalling case of Ms Alison Davies and Ryan didn't warrant any report, despite the serious failings of the Council indicated in the Serious Case Review?..I ASK AGAIN
Yours
Mrs S J Oliver
Stockport's Freedom of Information Campaigner
From: FOI Officer
To: sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com
Cc:
FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: Your request for information - Ref FOI 2131 - Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref 2131) in which you ask the following:
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.
The Service Manager, Safeguarding Children Unit, has provided the following information in relation to your request:
I understand that you have been concerned that no Council report was prepared following the death of Ms Davies in April 2006, and are also wanting to know what actions have been taken in respect of the recommendations of the Serious Case Review completed at the time.
Following the tragic death of Ms Davies and her son in 2006 a Serious Case Review was undertaken in respect of her son in accordance with Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006, and a summary of that report together with its recommendations was made public. Although the subject of the review was the son of Ms Davies, the report considered Ms Davies as well, and her own needs were therefore also discussed, with recommendations made.
I assume from your letter that you have accessed the executive summary which is on the Local Safeguarding Children Board website, and the actions summarised below therefore indicate the work undertaken in response to the lessons to be learnt that were identified:
· The use of the Common Assessment Framework including multi-agency Child in Need meetings have been rolled out through the Children’s Disability Partnership. This means that multi-agency meetings in respect of children with disabilities are held according to assessed need, that a lead professional is allocated and that relevant professionals from adult services are invited to attend if they have involvement with a parent. Parents are also an essential part of these meetings, and the purpose of the meeting is to provide clear plans for children and their families in order to meet identified needs.
· Minutes of meetings are kept in the form of a Child in Need plan outlining the needs of the family, actions taken and progress made. The expectation is that these are distributed to those attending the meeting, and dates for review meetings are also agreed.
· Reviews of services provided have been strengthened in order to ensure a better understanding of whether services are meeting needs.
· Multi-disciplinary records from the Child Development Centre are included in the child’s continuing health record.
· Communication across health visiting services has remained a high priority in cases where young children move, and national alert systems are available if professional assessment indicates that a child has gone missing.
· A CAMHS psychiatrist for children with learning difficulties was commissioned on a half time basis, and more recently additional support has been added via the provision of a psychologist and a CAMHS practitioner post to work with families where a child has a learning difficulty.
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


 
Home Page | Contact me | Dedication | On line Safety | Contract Law | Alan Dransfield | Robert Pickthall RIP | Tales from a 4* Council | Dodgy LibDems Mr Parnell RIP | Dodgy LibDems Toxic School | Dodgy LibDems A6 MARR | Dodgy LibDems Offerton | Dodgy LibDems General | Dodgy LibDems - Blackstone | LibDem Councillors | Dodgy LibDems Aquinas College | LibDem FOIA/EIR 2004 abuses | Dodgy LibDems Sandringham Road | Arms' Length NPS | Stockport Council wasting money | Cheshire East Council - Shenanigans | Anwar Majothi | Bredbury Hall Hotel | De Vere Hotels | Disability problems compounded | Dodd Group | Dragonfly Environmental Ltd | Drivas Jonas | GVA Grimley | Hantall Developments | Jackson, Jackson & Sons | Jackson Lloyd Ltd | Life Leisure | M60 Denton to Middleton Section | Mr Stunell and Mr Hunter LibDem MPs | North Reddish Labour Councillors | Parents of Disabled Children | Re-open the Woodhead Tunnel | Stockport Grammar Extension | Tee Hee | Village Hotels | DRANSFIELD | DEVON | DORSET | GENERAL | Dumfries and Galloway Council | Berwick Town Council | Salford | Manchester | Docs school | Docs school 2 | Docs school contamination | Docs Parnell Council | Docs Parnell Stunell | Docs Parnell police | Docs Trident Foams | Docs ICO | Docs general | Docs council officers | Docs LibDems | Docs Grand Central | Docs bypass | Docs Norse | Docs Offerton Precinct | Docs St Peter's Square | Docs Offerton in General | Docs Woodford | Docs Blackstone | Docs Aquinas | Photos | General Site Map
Back to content | Back to main menu