I am no longer considered vexatious, I presume

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.

Sheila Oliver

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Councillor Goddard allowed me to ask a question about the toxic waste dump school at the last Council Executive Meeting. I assume the allegation of vexatiousness no longer stands, or he wouldn't have let me ask the question. He has, after all, refused all questions for years on this subject.

Please would you now ask your superior to reply to my important FOI questions regarding the safeguarding of 550 pupils from toxic waste and potential costs of millions of pounds to council taxpayers.

I post up the meeting agenda document page where the question is replied to:-

---------------------------------------------------------

EXECUTIVE MEETING
Meeting: 14 March, 2011 At: 6.00 pm
PRESENT

Councillor Dave Goddard (Leader of the Council (Chair)) in the Chair; Councillor Sue Derbyshire (Deputy Leader of the Council and (Finance)) (Vice Chair); Councillors Stuar Bodsworth (Environment), Martin Candler (Customer Focus), Helen Foster-Grime (Communities), John Pantall (Adults & Health), John Smith (Leisure) and Mark Weldon (Children & Young People)
1. MINUTES
The minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 14 February, 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations were made.
3. URGENT DECISIONS
Reason for urgency
In order to complete the purchase of the land by the end of March 2011
The following urgent decision was reported: Urgent action taken
In Consultation with the Leader of the Council, the Corporate Director, Communities, Regeneration and Environment had acquired land within Hopes Carron behalf of the Council.
4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Members of the public were invited to submit questions to the Executive on any matters within the powers and duties of the Executive, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
One question was submitted relating to the new Primary School in North Reddish.
The Chair reported that it was normal practice to consult the Council's insurers on new developments.
5. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC INTEREST TEST
No 'not for publication' items were included on the agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yours faithfully,

Sheila

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Please may I have a response.

Kind regards

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

You do not appear to have asked a question or asked for any information;
therefore it is unclear what you are expecting in response. As you are
aware, your requests for information regarding Harcourt Street are
considered to be vexatious and manifestly unreasonable and will not
receive a response.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Officer,

I asked a Harcourt Street question at a recent Executive meeting and the response is recorded in the minutes. I have the documentary evidence and the response was witnessed not least by the local reporter. Therefore, if the Leader and Deputy Leader have allowed a question from me on this subject at an executive meeting, how can you currently claim my question is vexatious? Please carry out an internal review/public interest test of this refusal.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

It would appear to me that Stockport Borough Council (SBC) are not familiar with the FOI Act 2000 in its entirity because the SBC are on record several times that Shila Oliver is VEXATIOUS. It is NOT the person whom is/can be considered vexatious but the request.
Sheila Oliver posed a reasonable question at a recent SBC meeting which was logged and should be answered in person and publically recorded.
It would appear to me that the SBC are HIDING behind the FOI Act section 14/1 VEXATIOUS.