Sheıla Olıvers FOI request for the last two years

alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Stockport Borough Council,
Please provıde me wıth copıes of the SBC appraısal sheets of all the FOI Requests from Mrs Sheıla Olıver for the last two years. In partıcular. I refer to her FOI request whıch have been RULED VEXATIOUS.
1. Whıch partıcular offıceer ruled her reques as vexatıous.
2. Who conducted any ınternal ınquıry.
3. What ıs the SBC Polıcy and procedure for BENIGN FOI requests.

The reason I ask thıs ınformatıon ıs because Mr Olıvers FOI Requests look BENIGN to an outsıde observer and ıt would appear to me, that ıt ıs the SBC whom are beıng vexatıous NOT Mrs Olıver

Yours faithfully,

Alan M Dransfıeld

Gadawodd Ben Agellu anodiad ()

Between 13 January and 8 May 2010, Sheila Oliver made 51 requests of the public authority. On complaint to the ICO, the Commissioner was of the view that her requests could be fairly characterised as obsessive and have the effect of harassing the Council, causing distress to staff and imposing a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction. To the extent that her requests were not about environmental information, the Commissioner considered them to be vexatious. To the extent that they did seek environmental information, they were considered manifestly unreasonable.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Ben
There is nothing in you annotation to prove Sheila Olivers FOI request are/were vexatious
On thecontrary,it is the SBC who are vexatious NOT Mrs Oliver

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Ben
You don't work for the SBC by any chance?!
I have reviewed a large amounts of Mrs Olivers FOI requests ard i convinced her request are MOST benign
I will stand corrected
Best regards

Gadawodd Ben Agellu anodiad ()

I have never worked for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Ben

So you don,t work for the SBC, hence, pray tell me why you appear to be SO antı Mrs Olıver?
As an outsıde observer, I cant see any justıfıcatıon whatsoever for the SBC to refuse Mrs Olıvers FOI requests under sect 14(1) VEXATIOUS.
I fully apprecıate the SBC must be able to protect themselves from VEXATIOUS requests BUT please remember Ben,ıt ıs the REQUEST whıch must be VEXATIOUS NOT the requester.
Mrs Olıvers FOI requests appear to be straıtforward and BENIGN from where I am sıttıng.
I wıll stand corrected.

In my vıew, a VEXATIOUS request would be e.g. HOW MANY TEA LEAVES WERE USED IN THE SBC CANTEEN LAST YEAR?

Mrs Olıvers FOI request are BENIGN and raıse CONSIDERABLE poınts of Publıc Interest AND Lıfe Threatenıng dangers.
I look forward to your explanatıon and examples where you consıder Mrs Olıver ıs VEXATIOUS.

Gadawodd Sheila Oliver (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mr Agellu

The fact is that the school site was entirely contaminated, as I said, and the Council intended to put the children on unremediated toxic waste. Documentary evidence will sent to you with pleasure. The fact is that although Stockport Council stated £6.69 million would come from the sale of redundant school land to fund this school, when it came to it only £1.6 million did and circa £5 million had to be borrowed at the last minute. I said all along the finance for this scheme didn't make sense and it still doesn't. We have had a lady in her 80s last week taken ill at the back of her house on Mill Lane, North Reddish and the ambulance men couldn't reach her due to the insane blocking off of the rear of the properties on Mill Lane, which was an issue I raised many months ago. We haven't yet had a child killed due to the barking mad traffic arrangements around the toxic waste dump school, but that will be a matter of time. I believe the lollipop lady raised concerns within the first week of operation of the school.

The fact is that school had to go on that site whatever the cost, whatever planning rules it had to break to be put there and whatever risk to the children, and we must ask ourselves why that is?

In addition I have asked about the Council Pravda. I have worked out that the Executive Councillors have sent 123,000 households six times a year (= 738,000) for about 10 years (738,000 x 10 = 7,380,000) x about 10 photos each edition (73,800,000) of themselves in propaganda situations to local people at my expense. Fortunately, due to exposure on this site, the latest edition contained no photos of them. We note they stay in luxury hotels at my expense and drive top of the range BMWs, or Mini Cooper Cabriolets or Audi TTs.

The scrutiny committee is comprised a majority of councillors from the ruling party. If they do ever make recommendations, then the Executive Councillors can overrule them. We need scrutiny in this town. If the people who are running this town did their jobs properly, for which many receive absolutely huge salaries, and the ruling councillors were vigilant in their scrutiny, then no questions would need to be asked by me. Believe me, I look forward to that day.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Dear Ben Agellu
I think Mrs Oliver puts a very good argument forward.
I would go one step further than Mrs Oliver IE the Vale View school should be closed down subject to a full pubic inquiry AND a safety audit

Gadawodd Sheila Oliver (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mr Agellu

I think you maybe forget that I am a council taxpayer at Stockport and have lived there all my life. I am entitled to ask questions, not least about the reason for an unexpected expenditure of circa £ 5million.

For example, in the Agenda for the pre-meeting 30th March 2007 for the toxic waste dump school, Item 8 "Obvious concern over funding. DS (Donna Sager, project manager) to look at possible other funding sources."

And Item 10 "Advice required on how much of the above goes in the highlight report for May's Project Board....."

Did the project manager, Donna Sager, a lady who has accused me of wasting public money in questioning her, report these concerns over funding to her superiors at a time when I was being told there were no concerns over funding and my questions on the subject were vexatious? Did the Council at that point consider renovating the three schools instead of knocking them down, as they apparently should have considered anyway. Who then approved the continuation of the scheme which led to circa £5 million being borrowed at the last minute to fund it, as the sale of redundant school land was not realising the sums they expected due to the recession. I attended the council meetings; I knew the sale of redundant school land was hitting the buffers. Why were my relevant questions considered vexatious? Are the same people in charge of the development of the new Rose Hill School in Marple? Has better scrutiny of that project's costs been put in place?

I agree, Mr Agellu, I shouldn't be asking these questions. The people paid large salaries should be checking costs and the Executive councillors should be monitoring their actions.

Gadawodd Ben Agellu anodiad ()

Mr Dransfield wrote: "I look forward to your explanatıon and examples where you consıder Mrs Olıver ıs VEXATIOUS"

I have never suggested that Sheila Oliver is vexatious.

It is Sheila Olivers' requests which are the subject of Mr Dransfield's FoI request and where some of Sheila Oliver's requests were, in the view of the Information Commissioner, 'vexatious' or 'manifestly unreasonable'. The ICO's Decision Notice provides an explanation.

Sheila Oliver wrote: "I think you maybe forget that I am a council taxpayer at Stockport and have lived there all my life. I am entitled to ask questions ..."

a. the Freedom of Information Act 2000 enables any person to make a request. Where a person lives is irrelevant. How long they have lived at an address is irrelevant. At no stage have I ever made any statement to suggest that Sheila Oliver is not entitled to make a request.

b. the law allows a public authority to refuse a request on the grounds that it is vexatious. This has happened and Sheila Oliver exercised her right to complain. Sheila Oliver was given leave to appeal to the Information Tribunal if she disagreed whith the Commissioner's Decision Notice that her requests were vexatious or manifestly unreasonable.

None of that process has anything to do with where someone lives or how long they have lived somewhere.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Please forgive me then,if I have misunderstood your attitude towards Mrs Oliver.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Ben
On the 31st Oct you said

"Between 13 January and 8 May 2010, Sheila Oliver made 51 requests of the public authority. On complaint to the ICO, the Commissioner was of the view that her requests could be fairly characterised as obsessive and have the effect of harassing the Council, causing distress to staff and imposing a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction. To the extent that her requests were not about environmental information, the Commissioner considered them to be vexatious. To the extent that they did seek environmental information, they were considered manifestly unreasonable"

I fully appreciate that PA must be able to protect themselves from VEXATIOUS REQUESTS but closer inspection of Mrs Olivers requests will confirm they ARE BENIGN requests.
The SBC have fallen into the trap of recognizing the REQUESTER as VEXATIOUS, NOT the request.

I would argue that it IS THE SBC whom are being VEXATIOUS not Sheila Oliver.
I would also argue that the VEXATIOUS TRUMP card is being played by BOTH the SBC and ICO with wilfull INtent
Time will tell

Gadawodd Sheila Oliver (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mr Agellu

It does matter where I live because my council tax is paying for this school, which suddenly was admitted to be circa £5 million short, as I had said all along and was branded vexatious for mentioning. It would have been cheaper and safer to have renovated the three schools, an option which should have been put to local people.

Local people approach me on several issues and I ask questions for them. Not everyone is confident to challenge the Panjandrums and their obfuscations.

Mr Agellu, we have the bottom line that I said they were planning to put children on unremediated toxic waste, which can be easily proven, and for simply stating that fact, they branded me vexatious.

I am afraid the Information Commission appears to want a quiet life, and may not always look into things properly.

Mr Agellu, I am going to ask about Offerton Precinct now. I tried and tried with others to get through a high quality shopping precinct development keeping the existing businesses for local people by a local developer with a proven track record of delivering a high quality product. At no time did I stand to gain myself and the campaign cost me money. The ruling group voted down the plan in favour of a nebulous one, which has not materialised. The precinct is derelict and dangerous to local people. What is the current situation regarding the development, has anyone bothered to keep local people informed of the situation? What action is being taken to safeguard the lives of people who walk through this dangerous precinct? The local councillors should have been raising these issues and working to get a solution.

Please don't tell me I am wasting public money by asking these questions. Mr Agellu, you didn't take up my offer to see documentary evidence of all I am saying. I will send you with pleasure and you can see for yourself. Do let me know.

With warmest best wishes

Sheila

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mr Dransfield,

 

I am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 4956).

In the first element of your request, you have asked for copies of
‘appraisal sheets’ for every request made by Mrs Oliver in the last two
years. The Council does not recognise the term ‘appraisal sheets’ in the
context of handling FOI requests; therefore it is unclear what document
you are referring to in this part of your request. If you are asking for
information about the reasoning behind every response to every request
made by Mrs Oliver in the last two years, this is likely to exceed the
‘appropriate limit’ of £450 based on a statutory rate of £25 per hour as
referred to in section 12 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This is
because we estimate it would take over 18 hours to examine every request
falling within the scope of this request and collate information setting
out the reasoning behind each response, which could be contained within a
number of documents per request.

 

In addition, you have also asked for separate pieces of information
relating to any requests which have been refused on the basis that they
are vexatious within the terms of the FOIA. This information would need
collating separately in addition to the information and timescales set out
above. On this basis, this information does not have to be provided, in
line with section 12 FOIA.

 

Regardless of this fact, the Council cannot provide information regarding
an individual’s requests for information because some – if not all – of
these details constitute personal information as defined by the Data
Protection Act 1998. As you will be aware, responses to FOI requests are
not responses to an individual applicant but are disclosures into the
public domain. Requests and responses made via the What Do They Know
website such as this one are available worldwide for the foreseeable
future. Disclosing information about an individual’s requests and the way
they have been dealt with, particularly ones which may not have been made
via the WDTK website, would be unfair as it would involve making personal
information available on the internet for the foreseeable future. On this
basis, the information is likely to be exempt under section 40(2) FOIA.

 

In relation to point 2 of your request, if an applicant requests an
internal review of one of their FOI requests, they are provided with a
response from the senior officer who carried out the review. If you are
acting with Mrs Oliver’s consent in making this request, you can obtain
this information from her directly.

 

In relation to point 3, the Council’s Freedom of Information Policy is
available on the Council website at the link below:

 

[1]www.stockport.gov.uk/freedomofinformation

 

In relation to your final paragraph, the Council has not stated that Mrs
Oliver is vexatious; however as you can see from the WDTK website, a
number of her requests for information have been refused on the basis that
they are vexatious or manifestly unreasonable within the terms of the FOIA
and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

 

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for
information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you
must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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 [2][email address] 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

 

[3]www.ico.gov.uk

 

01625 545 745

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear FOI Officer,
Thank you for your response.You state that you have not considered Mrs Oliver as vexatious but her request.Mrs Olivers FOI requests raise health and safety issues and even lifethreatning issues,hence, I cant agree with your "UNREASOABLE" statement.She has raised/raising public interest issues as well.
I TOO, have raised lifethreatning issues with the SBC which are of a similar nature to Mrs Oliver but thus far none of my requests have been treated as vexatious??!!

I am sure Mrs Oliver will disagree with you as I do, her requests look perfectly BENIGN to me?!
I would also ask the SBC to be mindful of EA/2011/0079 Alan M Dransfield V ICO which is,in my view, likely to change the attitude of Public Authorities when they play their VEXATIOUS TRUMP CARD.As an outside observer,it is clear to me that the SBC are treating Mrs Oliver as VEXATIOUS NOT her requests.

You are seeking clarification on my terminolgy of "appraisal sheets". I would assume that someone within the SBC FOI appraises each and every requests which arrive, either by the Whatdotheyknow (WDTK)website of post/email.That would appear NOT to be the case from your response above.
I find to hard to believe your cost estimate refusal also because the majority of Mrs Olivers FOI requests have been submitted via the WDTK,hence, records are readily avialable.
It would appear that the SBC are NOT operating any ISO9000 QC/QA in their FOI department,which, is rather disconcerting.
To comply with your COST request,I am willing to redefine my FOI request to the last 12 months as opposed to 2 years.
Hope this meets with your approval

Yours sincerely,

alan m dransfield

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mr Dransfield,

 

Thank you for your further email below regarding this request (ref 4956).

As you may be aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) entitles
individuals to be provided with information on request, unless that
information is exempt. It does not entitle individuals to be provided with
documents. The Council’s reasons for considering Mrs Oliver’s requests
about the school at Harcourt Street to be vexatious and manifestly
unreasonable are available in the Information Commissioner’s Decision
Notices, the case references for which I understand Mrs Oliver has made
available via the What Do They Know website.

 

This information is publicly available via the Information Commissioner’s
Office website ([1]www.ico.gov.uk). Information which is already publicly
available to applicants via means other than making an FOI request is
exempt information under section 21(1) FOIA.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear FOI Officer,
It would appear then that Mrs Oliver needs to appeal your VEXATIOUS decisions to the ICO. But I would ask the SBC to be mindful of the ICO decision EA/2011/0079 Alan M Dransfield V ICO which is currently awaiting an UT hearing.That decision is MOST likely to be set in stone as a court authority in the new Year and would,in essence,make VEXATIOUS decisions MORE difficult to impose by Public Authorities.
I would ask the SBC to be mindful of the public costs defending an indefensible FOI decision and I would ask the SBC to reconsider their VEXATIOUS decisions against Mrs Oliver.
Mrs Olivers FOI requests are MOST BENIGN but I can fully understand her frustration meeting the current wall of silence and obstruction being placed in her path by the SBC.
It is all well and good for the SBC to impose a CARPET BAN on Mrs Oliver based on the VEXATIOUS article but I MUST say the USE of the VEXATIOUS DECISION sect 14(1) by the SBC appears to me as UNLAWFUL.

Yours sincerely,

alan m dransfield

Gadawodd Sheila Oliver (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

The school roof collapsed today. Fortunately, no children were hurt:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningn...

All my questions were valid. They always have been.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

I agree with you Mrs Oliver, your concerns for public safety have been justified by this ceiling collapse.
How can they say your Foi REQUESTS ARE VEXATIOUS WHEN THE SCHOOL IS FALLING DOWN AROUND THEIR EARS!!??

Gadawodd Sheila Oliver (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mr Dransfield

Have a look at this:-

http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/docume...

I said the traffic situation they were creating at the school was dangerous. They said I was vexatious. Well, despite the school having only been opened since September 2011, the police have complained about safety issues. Bearing in mind that I lost a child in a road accident (nobody's fault) it is very crass, insenstive and defamatory to have labelled me as vexatious for quite correctly raising this matter. The bottom line is that I have been proved to be right!

The shocking waste of money is not in having to answer my question but for the salaries of the senior council officers responsible for this dangerous mess and the councillors who waved this all through on the nod. The traffic arrangements they are suggesting won't solve this problem, and who on earth is left to police the traffic restrictions, now the Coalition is dispensing with the police in such large numbers?

Children are likely to be injured or die due to this dangerous situation, as I said all along. What price a child's life in Stockport? Not worth a carrot to them - certainly not worth the response to a FOI request.

One has to question whether those responsible are fit people to hold public office.

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Unfortunately, we may have to use body bags on the Vale Viw school before someone takes these safety issues seriously.
You have been raising these safety issues for several years now and you are CLEARLY on record,hence, it beggars belief the SBC can even consider your FOI requests as vexatious.
I STRONGLY recommend you should use the normal passage of appeal with the ICO because if you don't ,theICO can claim ignorance??!!

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mrs Oliver
On the 28Nov last year the SBC advised me
quote
"Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your further email below regarding this request (ref 4956).

As you may be aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) entitles
individuals to be provided with information on request, unless that
information is exempt. It does not entitle individuals to be provided with
documents. The Council’s reasons for considering Mrs Oliver’s requests
about the school at Harcourt Street to be vexatious and manifestly
unreasonable are available in the Information Commissioner’s Decision
Notices, the case references for which I understand Mrs Oliver has made
available via the What Do They Know website.

This information is publicly available via the Information Commissioner’s
Office website ([1]www.ico.gov.uk). Information which is already publicly
available to applicants via means other than making an FOI request is
exempt information under section 21(1) FOIA".
Unquote
So how the HELL cam Mrs Olivers previous FOI requests for the Vale View schools have been considered vexatious because the latest evidence on the SBC website about TRAFFIC SAFETY supports Mrs Olivers claims ref safety hazards.
I think the only way to get this overturned is to appeal agaonst the SBC/ICO decisionbased on NEW EVIDENCS,i.e Agenda 0 meeting minutes ref traffic safety

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mrs Oliver
On the 28Nov last year the SBC advised me
quote
"Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your further email below regarding this request (ref 4956).

As you may be aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) entitles
individuals to be provided with information on request, unless that
information is exempt. It does not entitle individuals to be provided with
documents. The Council’s reasons for considering Mrs Oliver’s requests
about the school at Harcourt Street to be vexatious and manifestly
unreasonable are available in the Information Commissioner’s Decision
Notices, the case references for which I understand Mrs Oliver has made
available via the What Do They Know website.

This information is publicly available via the Information Commissioner’s
Office website ([1]www.ico.gov.uk). Information which is already publicly
available to applicants via means other than making an FOI request is
exempt information under section 21(1) FOIA".
Unquote
So how the HELL cam Mrs Olivers previous FOI requests for the Vale View schools have been considered vexatious because the latest evidence on the SBC website about TRAFFIC SAFETY supports Mrs Olivers claims ref safety hazards.
I think the only way to get this overturned is to appeal agaonst the SBC/ICO decisionbased on NEW EVIDENCS,i.e Agenda 0 meeting minutes ref traffic safety

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Mrs Oliver
On the 28Nov last year the SBC advised me
quote
"Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your further email below regarding this request (ref 4956).

As you may be aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) entitles
individuals to be provided with information on request, unless that
information is exempt. It does not entitle individuals to be provided with
documents. The Council’s reasons for considering Mrs Oliver’s requests
about the school at Harcourt Street to be vexatious and manifestly
unreasonable are available in the Information Commissioner’s Decision
Notices, the case references for which I understand Mrs Oliver has made
available via the What Do They Know website.

This information is publicly available via the Information Commissioner’s
Office website ([1]www.ico.gov.uk). Information which is already publicly
available to applicants via means other than making an FOI request is
exempt information under section 21(1) FOIA".
Unquote
So how the HELL cam Mrs Olivers previous FOI requests for the Vale View schools have been considered vexatious because the latest evidence on the SBC website about TRAFFIC SAFETY supports Mrs Olivers claims ref safety hazards.
I think the only way to get this overturned is to appeal agaonst the SBC/ICO decisionbased on NEW EVIDENCS,i.e Agenda 0 meeting minutes ref traffic safety

Gadawodd Sheila Oliver (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

This is the text of an article from last week's Stockport Express:-

"Furious governors are demanding to know why their £8m super-school
is still unfinished a term after opening.

The governing body of Vale View primary school in Reddish has
written to the Council with a catalogue of 'serious concerns'.

Governors at the state-of-the art 550 pupil school - which opened
in September - have called the situation 'unacceptable'.

Last month the school was evacuated after a ceiling to an office
collapsed.

Governors now say fixtures and fittings keep falling off and IT
equipment has not been correctly installed.

They complain workmen are still on site nearly six months after
opening and slam 'a multitude of outstanding items not completed'.

Their letter says: "When can we expect an end to this situation? We
have been patient, tolerant, understanding and accommodating so
far, and appreciate all the hard work so many people have put into
getting our school up and running, but the situation is now
becoming not only untenable, but simply unacceptable."

At their latest meeting the board of governors resolved to write to
the town hall and did so shortly before Christmas.

They complain windowsills and door stoppers keep dropping off,
there are no play-ground markings, boxes of computers are still not
unpacked or installed, and the ventilation shafts do not work.

Health and safety problems are raised around the intallation of
multimedia whiteboards and IT equipment is slammed as 'inadequate
and insufficient'.

The letter adds: "Weekly neetings between staff here and the
contractors to update on what is happening are now becoming
entirely non-productive."

Coun Stuart Bodsworth, executive member for children and young
people, said: "The new school provides an exellent education
facility which benefits the Reddish community.

"We are aware there are some issues needing further work at the
building.

"However, it is common for some works to continue during a 12-month
period following completion of any building work.

"As part of their contract the builders are workingwith the school
to ensure this work is undertaken at times which are most
convenient to the school."

Defamation Act 1996 Offer to make amends:-

A person who has published a statement alleged to be defamatory of
another may offer to make amends. This must be expressed as an
offer to make amends under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sheila