Toxic waste dump school

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,

I believe the parents who drive to the toxic waste dump school are not allowed to use the drop off area and are now parking in surrounding streets, which are already narrow and congested.

I told the Council that the Highways Officer had stated in an email (evidence submitted to the Council) that the drop off area was not big enough, but I was branded vexatious for raising this matter.

Would you please supply me with all documents relating to any changes in the traffic arrangements at the Toxic Waste Dump School at North Reddish, Stockport.

Any refusal will be taken to tribunal following the landmark Dransfield Vexatious decisions, with the resulting unnecessary costs to both Stockport Council and the Information Commission, whose flawed decision allowed this planning travesty to continue unchecked.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,


I am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 4848).


As you have previously been informed, your requests for information about
the school at 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 been through the Council’s
internal review process and was upheld. It has also been investigated by
the Information Commissioner’s Office at your request, on two occasions;
the ICO upheld the Council’s decision in both its Decision Notices.


Yours sincerely,



Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council


show quoted sections

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

The only way to overturn this UNREASONABLE decision is to submit a formal complaint to the First Tier Tribunal using my previous case as a court authority

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Dransfield.

I shall do that. This will cost the Information Commission and the Council a lot of money. Bang goes their assertion that this refusal is purely to save money. They obviously have an awful lot to hide.

Kind regards


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

Unfortunately, a LOT of Public Authority's are using their VEXATIOUS TRUMP CARD to hide something.
I am sure my FTT decision EA-2011/0079 is a LANDMARK decision for anti vexatious claimants.
A VEXATIOUS request example would be HOW MANY SUGAR LUMPS DOES THE SBC USE EACH YEAR.Or indeed a request which the requester had received from the PA and repeated their request.
A simple perusal of this website would confirm your requests are NOT vexatious. Evidence available on this site does support my claims that PA,s nationwide are perverting the course of Justice with their VEXATIOUS TRUMP CARD.

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

In particular, I refer to the FACT that many P.A's have entered into contract agreement with the likes of NPS whom are NOT covered by the FOI Act 2000.
My ongoing case against Devon County Council ref 6 PFI schools is a perfect example of such evidnce where the DCC declare they do NOT HOLD the sought after information.
In my view, this is WRONG because NPS are HOLDING the soughtafter data BEHALF of the DCC.
My Upper Tribunal decsisionGIA/1053/2011 is a landmark decision for section 3(2) DO NOT HOLD and the RETRIAL (TBC)could hold serious ramifications. Unfortunately the UT decision is not in the public domain yet but anyone who is interested can get a copy of the UT decision by sending me an email via this site

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

At least the SBC are seen to be acting in a correct manner by advising you that your request is vexatious everytime you submit a request. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying for one moment the SBC have grounds to claim section 14-1(VEXATIOUS).In contrast,the DCC are COMPLETLY ignoring my requests.
The ONLY way to prove your request are not vexatious is to appeal each decision using my EA/2011/0079 as a COURT AUTHORITY.

Dear FOI Officer,

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

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

"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.