Make and explore Freedom of Information requests
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Primary capital programme - was PRINCE2 applied to the Harcourt Street development?
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 11 July 2010
Land dispute Harcourt Street
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 6 March 2011
Inadequate removal of brown asbestos from primary school site
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 8 October 2010
Failure to comply with BS 10175 at the proposed school on a contaminated site
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 29 March 2010
Misleading the Office of the Schools Adjudicator????
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 28 April 2010
Proposed school not big enough to accommodate all the children who need to attend
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 13 January 2010
Cover up by LibDem Executive councillors of a possible offence under the Fraud Act
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 1 January 2011
Reasons for not using the Fir Tree site
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 17 July 2010
Independent review of refusals
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 17 July 2010
Amosite asbestos found on Harcourt Street site
Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
The request was refused by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.
From: Sheila Oliver (Account suspended)
16 July 2010
Dear Stockport Borough Council,
I told you the Harcourt Street was contaminated and that the
Council was £5 million short on the funding - I was declared
vexatious, yet both turned out to be true.
I told the Council there was far more asbestos on the site that
they claimed (we have photographic evidence). I was labelled
vexatious yet it turns out now to be true.
This is the proposed plan as of 12/7/10 to deal with the asbestos
on the site:-
"An area would be prepared using a 360 excavator. Topsoil would be
spreak over the goetextile membrane. The machine would then
commence preoparation of the second area. Hand picking to remove
asbestos would be undertaken by operatives from a licenced asbestos
removal contractor with any suspect material recovred bagged for
safe disposal. Segregation would be provided between the separate
areas occupied by the pickers and the excavator with crowd barrier
fencing. The process would be repeated with the topsoid built up in
layers to form the sub-soil element of the remediation cover. After
completion of the distribution and picking of the on-site topsoil,
tested and certified imported material would be blinded over the
surface of the on site material in accordance with the
recommendations of the Remediation Strategy Report."
For information,
"Amosite asbestos is more commonly referred to as "brown" asbestos
and sometimes "gray" asbestos. This form of asbestos was found and
is mined in South Africa and is considered to be one of the more
hazardous forms of the material, second only to "blue" asbestos. In
fact, a large portion of South Africans who worked in the many
asbestos mines there have been sickened with some sort of
asbestos-related disease. Countless numbers have died."
This sounds very expensive. Who will be paying - the council
taxpayer or BAM Construction?
Yours faithfully,
Sheila Oliver
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
23 July 2010
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 3191).
As you have previously been informed, all your requests for information
about Harcourt Street 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 previously been through the
Council's internal review process and was upheld.
You are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. 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
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ( 4 March 2011)
This is the text of the letter from the Information Commission which states you should be answering questions:-
------------------------------------------------------
Information Commissioner's Office
Promoting public access to official information and protecting your personal information
15th February 2010
Case Reference Number RCC0296506 / FS50232537 Stockport Borough Council
Dear Mrs Oliver
Thank you for your letter of 7 February 2010. In your letter you state that since the issuing of the Decision Notice in relation to case FS50232537 on 10 November 2009 further evidence has come to light which you feel no proves you are not vexatious. You also state that since the Decision Notice was issued all your subsequent requests for information made to the Council have been refused on the basis that the requests are vexatious.
The Decision Notice found that at the time of your request, which was 1 December 2008, your request was manifestly unreasonable and therefore Stockport Borough Council were correct to refuse to disclose to you the information you requested by virtue of 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. All Decision Notice must consider the circumstances at the time the request was made and cannot take into account circumstances that post date the request. If you are unhappy with the findings of the Decision Notice you should appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Any appeal should be lodged with the Tribunal within 28 days of the date of the Decision Notice. The contact details for the Tribunal are found at the bottom of the Decision Notice.
In relation to your second point, that the Council are now refusing all your requests for information on the basis that they are vexatious, the Decision Notice relates specifically to the request you made on the 1 December 2008 and does not make any finding regarding future requests. If you have made further requests and these have been refused you should ask the Council to review the requests and if following this review you remain unhappy with their response you can bring a new complaint to the Commissioner.
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF t:0845 630 6060 f:01625 524510 e:mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk w:ico.gov.uk
Link to this