I saw these newspaper clippings at the time and kept them. An indication of what goes on in Stockport.
I have obtained a copy of a letter from the Local Government Ombudsman addressed to the Chief Executive of Stockport Council. The LGO itself stated that the council used 'poor practice' and 'displayed an absence of integrity.' that the LGO itself found worrying....this was in relation to signature[s] being 'transferred' by Stockport Council employees.
I believe that the following are just some of SMBC's bad practices..
1/ the forging / transferring of parents' signatures
2/ misleading health professionals by forging / transferring of parents' signatures
3/ referring only to one parent in internal memos/ minutes ....deliberately omitting the other parent ....an on-
4/ issuing derogatory and made-
5/ publishing members of the general public 's name , address, and signature on the councils website [ including Sheila Oliver ]
6/ publishing ALL of its councillors names addresses and phone numbers on its website
7/ publishing most council members' signatures on its website
8/ providing , quite freely , parents of a disabled child , third party confidential information ie people's names addresses and contact details
9/ not referring their own officers for gross misconduct to the relevant organisation[s],of ie, transferring [ forging], signatures etc
10/ SMBC , at the time, denied that act to the LGO [ council's colleagues]…
only for SMBC to then admit to it to the GSCC some several years later
11 council officers have had conversations between themselves, [hearsay/careless whispers], at home [ which should not be happening ..a breach of data protection?] ...and then making those personal passing remarks into official council documents.,,,which contained nasty comments made about one parent of a disabled child
12/ the cutting out of a parents s signature from a disabled blue badge form.
[ apparently this is normal council practice to do so...]
13 denying parents of disabled children , access to their own our electronic information for many years....[ unless they agreed to sign the councils made up ground rules ]
"Council unlawfully limiting services to disabled children
Children & Young People Now
16 March 2009
A ruling in the High Court has signalled that the use of an "eligibility criteria" to limit access to disabled children's services can be unlawful.
The court found in favour of a young disabled man and his mother who had seen their pack calling on age of services halved since Islingon Borough Council introduced the criteria framework in 2007.
The Council for Disabled Children raised concern about the lack of legal clarity as to whether local authorities are permitted to use banding or other forms of criteria to limit access to services.
The council told the court in recent years eligibility criteria have tightened, as a result of increasing pressures on social care budgets, so that fewer families receive a service.
The judge found that these criteria were unlawful because they failed to distinguish between services the council had a duty to provide and those that they had only a power to provide.
Islington was also found to have acted unlawfully because it had not shown proper regard to duties to promote disability equality when setting the criteria.
Christine Lenehan, CDC's director said: "We would want to emphasise that Islington should not be singled out for criticism as a result of this judgment.
"What is crystal clear from this judgment is that where local authorities have a statutory duty to provide services, they must do so regardless of cost or any other consideration."
The council is now calling on all local authorities to consider its conclusions and review their eligibility criteria.
It is also asking the Department for Children, Schools and Families to issue guidance on the law governing eligibility criteria, to meet what Mrs Justice Black described as a "pressing need" for a central steer from government."