Cover up by LibDem Executive councillors of a possible offence under the Fraud Act

Sheila Oliver made this Freedom of Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Waiting for an internal review by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council of their handling of this request.

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

The Executive Councillors at Stockport banned any FOI or council meeting questions regarding a compulsory purchase order at Harcourt Street. In addition to 406 statutory objections to the loss of public open space the Council also received a statutory objection from someone who believed they had an interest in the CPO land. By law this had to trigger a public inquiry, so that person's claim could be decided impartially. Mr John Hill, the Council's Legal Officer, told the Secretary of State that there were no objections received from anyone with an interest in the land. It is not for the Council to decide such matters.

The Council had previously talked in minutes of CPOing the land on the quiet, not letting an eagle eyed landowner know what they were up to and the possibility of the project failing if the matter went to a public inquiry.

It is an offence under the Fraud Act to knowingly deprive someone of their property.

The LibDem Executive councillors banned any information about the CPO process leaking out. The reason they gave was that I was rude, offensive and vexatious, a claim the Council has since retracted, and that the questions being asked were vexatious, although it has since transpired that the entire site was contaminated as I said and that Executive Councillor Weldon has admitted in the Manchester Evening News that they expected to find brown asbestos on the site, so why my insisting that the site was contaminated should have been declared vexatious is anyone's guess. I also stated the traffic situation was dangerous, which is yet to be proved, that the school was not big enough, and as they are installing a temporary classroom that would seem to be the case, and that the finance was not as they stated and instead of £6.69 million for the project coming from capital receipts, the Council was forced to admit only £1.6 million was and the rest had to be borrowed.

So, I would like to see the evidence put before the LibDem Executive Councillors that my questions were vexatious, which led them to ban any disclosure of the CPO details which may have led to an offence under the Fraud Act being committed.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,


Alan Maxted left an annotation ()

Very well said Sheila

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 3638).

You have requested `...evidence put before the LibDem Executive
Councillors that my questions were vexatious...'. As you are aware,
personal information of an individual applicant is exempt from disclosure
under section 40(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act). This means
that you cannot request your own personal information under the FOI Act.

If you would like to make a request for your personal information, you can
make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Details
of how to do this are available on the Council website at the following


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
[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





01625 545 745

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections

Dear Not Ms Naven

Thank you very much. I have done that already and will look through. If there is nothing there, then I assume the LibDem Executives did not ask for any evidence before making the decision to cover up a possible offence under the Fraud Act.

The same Executive Councillors and senior council officers were involved with the following tragic tale, and I am wondering whether such people are suitable for public office, bearing in mind the current cover up of a school knowingly put on toxic waste with no intended remediation, a missing sum of circa £5 million and the school not being big enough even before it is built.

Mr Parnell adopted two daughters from Stockport Council. The girls had had an appalling time with their birth parents and one had the wrong details on her documents, so if, for example, he took her to A & E, she simply didn't exist as a person. Mr Parnell asked for a decade for counselling help for his daughters and help to sort out the administrative error which was having such a detrimental effect on his daughter. As the children grew, he got no help whatsoever and their behaviour deteriorated.

After a decade of trying to get Stockport Council to listen, he decided to stand in peaceful protest outside Stockport town hall, where he was very popular with local people who beeped or waved as they drove past in support of his peaceful protest or who talked to him about his problem.

Following the tragic cases of Andrea Adams, the 18-year-old who jumped to her death from a tower block after contact with Stockport Council and Alison Davies who jumped from the Humber Bridge with her 9-year-old autistic son Ryan, the serious case reviews led to Stockport making a commitment to helping people in future who came to them needing help with troubled children.

The Council had the police called over 150 times to Mr. Parnell, 49 arrests, one suicide attempt in a police cell, one court case dropped on the day of the hearing, multiple incarcerations in tough Forest Bank prison, where the prisoners initially thought he was a paedophile because they knew his case involved children and because he was so sick when he was imprisoned he went straight to the hospital wing. Finally, the prisoners and prison officers realised he was innocent and had a very low opinion of the council officers and councillors who had put him through this terrible ordeal.

Mr Parnell was released to 8am to 8pm house arrest. He was then arrested for an alleged assault with a sneeze. At his very expensive trial the judge found that the sneeze didn't happen and the security guard admitted saying that he would kick his ******* head in and threatened to kill him. Mr Parnell was acquitted of the assault with a sneeze and the judge told the Council to sort out his problem and that Mr. Parnell should claim benefits to qualify for Legal Aid.

At no time since has the Council tried to help him, despite high level meeting with Barry Khan, Council Solicitor. When Mr Parnell tried to attend his benefits tribunal at the town hall he was arrested.

Mr Parnell tried to ask a council meeting question following his acquittal as to why he had been sent to prison when he had done absolutely nothing wrong. The then LibDem Mayor ruled that his question couldn't be asked because it was about planning and subjudice. It wasn't about planning. The Mayor tried to have Mr Parnell arrested again that night and I had to beg the police not to. The Mayor was himself subsequently arrested for alleged benefit fraud.

I have seen the police called with blue flashing lights by the Council when Mr Parnell used the town hall public lavatory, despite having a letter from the then Chief Executive, John Schultz, saying that he could do so. He spent that night in a police cell.

I have attended most of Mr Parnell's trials and at no point has he ever been accused of anything serious. Why has he been persecuted in this manner? His latest £10,000 per day 3 day trial was for incidents like going to a council office and being told to go to Stopford House to speak to Ged Lucas, Assistant Chief Executive. When he got there they arrested him. He was trying to sort out his council tax because the Council was threatening him with the bailiffs. What effect would that have had on his troubled daughters to be homeless?

At his latest trial the police tried to get Ged Lucas to attend but the court heard he refused to return their calls. The judge said when asked to attend the court, Ged Lucas "ran for the hills".

What a sorry, expensive for the taxpayer tale of persecution of a completely innocent man and by exactly the same people who brought us the secretive school on toxic waste.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Alan Maxted left an annotation ()

This gives me grave concerns!

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Maxted

I am glad someone else can be horrified at the imprisonment of a completely blameless man. The LibDem councillors aren't.

You may recall in the local paper the local coroner expressing his concern at what was going on with the cases of the tragic suicides of Andrea Adams from a tower block and Alison Davies from the Humber Bridge with her autistic son Ryan. At the same time the Coroner was expressing his concern, the higher officials and Executive councillors at Stockport were happy to see this done to Mr Parnell, whom the court heard recently tried to commit suicide in a police cell. I have attended most of his trials. Apart from the sneeze which didn't happen, he was charged with nothing more than going peacably to Stockport Council to ask for help for his daughters.

Thanks for your concern and humanity.

Kind regards


Dear FOI Officer,

This is the text from the Information Commission. The Council clearly should be responding to these 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:[email address]

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Fraud Act 2006 - "The Crown Prosecution Service website states:- the offence is committed if: 'The defendant made a false representation dishonestly knowing that the respresentation was or might be untrue or misleading with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.'"

Below are the meeting minutes which state that the compulsory purchase order would be opposed and would take about 18 months:-

Notes from meeting 26 May 2006
Nigel Lawford Brian Ormerod Ian Keyte Chris Woolard Andy Mackenzie
Drainage issues
Confirmed that following analysis of the options we will pursue the connections over the un-registered land to the Harcourt Street main sewers. AJM to contact Alex Bremner to get advice from United Utilities on whether a CPO is needed.
Mill Lane access to the site
CW confirmed that access can be contained to the access strip we own but we will need to obtain a small triangle of the adjacent 'Redrow' land as a visibility splay.
Redrew are now accepting they own this land but can't prove it as they have mislaid the deeds. IK is chasing them to resolve this issue. Redrow unlikely to own the 'ransom strip' at the end of our access route to Mill Lane but again IK to chase Redrow. Ultimately the only route forward will be a CPO.
As we don't need the whole of the 'Redrow' site for the development the issue of loss of public open space is not an issue (the majority of the land can remain as it is).
CW has confirmed that we can't bypass the 'ransom strip' by accessing the site over the 'Redrow' land. The ransom strip will be required for the development of a footpath access into the school. It could then be adopted as the rest of the highway.
The Project Board will have to soon advise on whether we are to pursue the CPO of the two areas of land required to develop this site. AJM and NRSL to set up a briefing meeting with CK to discuss further.
It should be noted that considering the public hostility to this project any CPO will probably be opposed and as such it will take around 18 months from the Executive decision to follow this route to completion. This will have serious programme and financial impact on the scheme.
Below is a letter from the Council to the Secretary of State stating no objections were received from anyone with an interest in the CPO land. This is an untrue statement, as there was a statutory objection from a householder who thought they had a 38 year long interest in the ransom strip CPO land:-

Business Services Directorate
Stockport Legal Services
'Fbwrr Half, Stockport SKI 3X.E
Fax: 0161 477 9530
3225 Mr.
- 3 JUL 2008
The Secretary of State
for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Schools Assets Team,
iviowden Hail, Staindrop Road,
Darlington. Co Durham.
DL3 9BG.
First Class Post
1st July 2008
MyRef. JBH/00069C YourRef.

Dear Secretary of State,
•» "':V
Re: The Metropolitan Borough of Stockport (Harcourt Street, North Reddish) (Primary School and Children's Centre Development Scheme) Compulsory Purchase Order 2008
I refer to the afiorementiooned Order that was sent to you under cover of my letter of the 4th June last for confirmation and enclose herewith six letters of representation that have been received directly by the Council in respect thereof. Two of the letters are from the same persons.
The authors of the letters have been informed that their representations have been sent to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.
We would invite the Secretary of State to treat the substance of the letters as being insufficient to warrant a local Public Inquiry being held as the Council is of the view that the persons making the representations do not have an interest in the land contained within the Order that would in law compel the Secretary of State to hold a local Public Inquiry to consider any objections there may be made to the Order.
The basis for this assertion is set out below -
As background information the Council is seeking to establish a new Primary School on land off Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport and having already obtained planning permission for the new School to be built on land known as the Harcourt Street Recreation Ground is seeking authority to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire three parcels of land (the "CPO Land") that are needed to facilitate the provision of (a) an access to the School off Mill Lane and (b) to allow utility services to be laid through land off Harcourt Street to serve the new School.


Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver