10th October 2025
A recent email record has raised questions about transparency and accountability within Stockport Council’s governance practices.
An automated message shows that an email titled “Wildlife Crime at Padden Brook, SK6 – the past year up until August this year”, sent to the Council’s Info Services team on 8 August 2025, was deleted without being read on 9 October 2025.
The sender’s subject line suggests it related to wildlife crime in the Romiley area – an issue of public concern given the environmental importance of the Padden Brook corridor.
The revelation raises a simple but serious question:
How can Stockport Council claim certain public information requests are “vexatious” when they are deleted unread?
Freedom of Information (FOI) and environmental information requests are legally protected under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, both of which require councils to properly consider and respond to legitimate public requests.
Yet, if emails are deleted without being opened, it appears no such assessment can take place.
Local residents have long complained about difficulties obtaining responses from the council. This latest instance could strengthen calls for an independent audit of how public correspondence is handled within the authority, particularly when it involves environmental or community issues.
As one Romiley resident commented, “If they don’t even read the messages, how can they possibly decide they’re not worth answering?”
Stockport Council has been contacted for comment.
Stockport Council Deletes Emails Unread – How Can They Call Requests ‘Vexatious’?
A recent email record has raised questions about transparency and accountability within Stockport Council’s governance practices.
An automated message shows that an email titled “Wildlife Crime at Padden Brook, SK6 – the past year up until August this year”, sent to the Council’s Info Services team on 8 August 2025, was deleted without being read on 9 October 2025.
The content of the message is unknown, but the sender’s subject line suggests it related to wildlife crime in the Romiley area – an issue of public concern given the environmental importance of the Padden Brook corridor.
The revelation raises a simple but serious question:
How can Stockport Council claim certain public information requests are “vexatious” when they are deleted unread?
Freedom of Information (FOI) and environmental information requests are legally protected under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, both of which require councils to properly consider and respond to legitimate public requests.
Yet, if emails are deleted without being opened, it appears no such assessment can take place.
Local residents have long complained about difficulties obtaining responses from the council. This latest instance could strengthen calls for an independent audit of how public correspondence is handled within the authority, particularly when it involves environmental or community issues.
As one Romiley resident commented, “If they don’t even read the messages, how can they possibly decide they’re not worth answering?”
Monitoring Officer Vicki Bates and Information Governance lead Liz Sykes at Stockport Council has been contacted for comment.
