Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Dear Sir/Madam,
Subject: Request for scrutiny of alleged financial irregularities and suppression of public interest inquiries
I am writing to you to draw your attention to serious concerns I have identified regarding financial irregularities and the suppression of legitimate public inquiry into those irregularities by a public authority in the United Kingdom. Although the primary matter may not fall directly into the data‐protection remit of the ICO, the objections and responses from the public authority – including branding the raising of legitimate questions as “vexatious” – raise issues of transparency, accountability and possibly misuse of power which may warrant regulatory oversight or referral.
Background and concerns
On the website of Sheila Oliver (which may be acting as campaigner or commentator) the following points are set out:
- A school project overseen by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) originally projected at around £5.5 million is reported to have escalated to approximately £9.9 million within a few years. sheilaoliver.org
- When questions were raised about the cost escalation, the correspondent was told by the Council’s Head of Legal Services that their enquiries were “vexatious”. sheilaoliver.org
- Key elements of cost breakdown, contract values, and land‐sale receipts (which were to fund part of the scheme) remain unclear or supposedly undisclosed. sheilaoliver.org
- The correspondent claims that although they raised concerns with the Council’s senior officers, no proper investigation appears to have been undertaken. sheilaoliver.org
These factors, if accurate, suggest potential issues of mis-reporting of public capital expenditure, inadequate oversight, and suppression of public scrutiny.
Why I believe ICO involvement may be appropriate
While the primary issue is financial, the pattern of invoking “vexatious” as a reason to refuse full disclosure of information raises concerns under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) if environmental contamination risk is involved. The ICO has jurisdiction over FOIA/EIR compliance and the proper handling of requests for official information.
Given that:
- Public‐interest questions about capital schemes appear to have been refused or labelled “vexatious”;
- The irregularities relate to public funding and public oversight;
- There is mention of “toxicity” and possible contamination on the site (which may invoke EIR obligations) sheilaoliver.org
I am therefore requesting that the ICO consider whether an investigation or oversight action is appropriate in respect of the public authority’s handling of information requests, transparency obligations, and whether the “vexatious” label has been properly applied.
What I ask for
- That the ICO assesses whether the public authority has correctly applied FOIA/EIR provisions when refusing or limiting disclosure – especially where costs and scope of capital expenditure and land sales are concerned.
- That the ICO evaluate whether the use of the term “vexatious” in this context meets the statutory test and whether the complainant’s rights to information (or environmental information) have been undermined by the refusal.
- That any findings of mis-application or failure of transparency be brought to light, and that the public authority be required to rectify shortcomings—such as by releasing requested information or providing an explanation for significant cost escalations and funding shortfalls.
Attachments and evidence
I enclose (or can provide) relevant extracts from the campaign website of Sheila Oliver which sets out the timeline of costs, the correspondence in which the “vexatious” term is used, and links to FOI responses and relevant documents. I am also able to supply any further documentation I have regarding the project if required.
Conclusion
In the interest of public accountability and responsible expenditure of public funds, I believe the issues raised merit independent oversight. I trust the ICO will review this matter and may advise on the best route forward—whether that is an investigation, referral, or other regulatory action.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter, and inform me of any next steps. I am content to provide further information if required. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette
Below is the schools closure notice from October 2005. People were told the cost of the new amalgamated replacement school would be £5.5 million. Had they been given the true figure, it would have been obvious that the more popular option of renovation of the existing three much-loved schools would have been far cheaper. They weren’t given the true facts.
“Why the jump from £5.5 million in October 2005 to £7.5 million in December 2005”, I asked? “Don’t be vexatious”, the Council replied – Councillor Goddard, Councillor Derbyshire, Councillor Weldon and all he rest of the Executive Councillors, The Chief Executive, John Schulz, the Council Solicitor, Barry Khan, the Director of Children and Young People Mr Andrew Webb and Ms Sager, his deputy.
I think it was a reasonable question to ask. As of the end of November 2025 it is still considered vexatious of me to be asking this question.
Architects fees of £151,507 were paid for this school. These come on top of £550,000 paid to NPS Stockport for “property service fees”. Professional fees of £69,336 were paid to BAM Construction. I asked for a breakdown of these figures – I was being “vexatious” apparently.
There was “obvious concern over funding” at a time that I was being branded “vexatious” for raising concerns about funding. What on earth has been going on here? Why did the school have to be built however much it cost? Was Ms Donna Sager, Project Manager, reporting these problems or were things being kept quiet – “advice required about how much of the above goes in the highlight report for May’s Project Board. “
Available funding £5.8m – projected overall costs £8.2m, but to mention this was “vexatious”.
As you will see above, Ms Sager, a woman who branded me “vexatious” for raising issues regarding funding, is writing to me in July 2006 with platitudes about the funding whilst simultaneously there is mentioned in the Highlight Report May to July 2006 – “scheme costs currently circal £2.40 million over the available funding”. Is Ms Sager a fit person to hold public office? When these rising costs were becoming apparent, was the option of renovation of the existing schools ever considered, as it should have been?
“An item in the accounts breaks the law if, for example, it records spending or income that…. was spent on something that the council has power to spend moneyon, but which was so unreasonably high that it was unlawful”.
Below is the Risk Register. As you will see there is high risk of the Environment Agency requiring additonal survey meaning delays and costs. “I think the EA will require more work on the contamination”, I said. “Don’t be vexatious”, they replied.
There was thought to be a high risk of the Environment Agency requiring drainage work in excess of the allowed sum. “I think drainage will be a problem with regards to the aquifer below the site and the existing drainage problems on the site”, I said. “Don’t be vexatious” they replied.
They felt there was a high risk of the Compulsory Purchase Order going to public inquiry, so they didn’t bother to hold the statutorily required public inquiry – therefore breaking the law. “You are not dealing with the CPO properly”, I said. “Don’t be vexatious”, they replied – Goddard, Derbyshire, Weldon, Khan, Schulz, Bodsworth, Candler, Pantall, et al.
By February 2006 the cost had risen to £8 million. “Why this further rise”, I asked. “Don’t be vexatious”, they replied, and they still do. This was up from £5.5m in October 2025.
There is a Fraud and Financial Irregularities policy which they have to comply with. If someone reports to them a financial irregularity they have to look into it. I told the Chief Executives past and present, the Council Solicitor, the Director of Finance, Steve Houston and all the Executive Councillors. None has acted on this apparent large financial irregularity except to brand the raising of this matter as “vexatious”. I have to question yet again whether these highly paid panjandrums are fit people to hold public office. They didn’t even have to buy the land for the school.
The Council admits that the sale of redundant school land is not making the money they wanted. £6.69 million of funding for the toxic waste dump school was to come from this source. “The sale of redundant school land is not making the sums you expected”, I told the Council. “Don’t be vexatious” they replied!
Now, as if by magic,there is no concern about the funding. However, when it came down to it, circa £5 million had to be suddenly borrowed. Were senior council officers concealing the funding shortfall and therefore needed to brand an innocent council taxpayer as “vexatious” to cover up their incompetence/something more sinister?
I raised the matter of the dodgy finances for this school with the District Auditor – Tim Watkinson. It was impossible to get any response from him. In the end – as an experiment- I decided to find out if it were easier to find out about Britain’s Trident Nuclear Weapons Programme than get any information from Mr. Watkinson. It was, far easier.
In the end – kicking and screaming – he responded to let me know he saw nothing wrong with what had gone one.
We are paying NPS Stockport an awful lot of architects’s fees considering the school has been open a year! I wonder what that is all about? Neither NPS Stockport nor Stockport Council will respond.
We paid £38,000 in damages to BAM Construction. Why? Vexatious to ask, I presume.
We paid BAM Construction £38.000 in damages. I think this is because the Council lied to them about the toxic waste dump school site being contamined and in the contract made them liable for all contamination remediation costs. I expect the Freedom of Information Department, The Council Solicitor and the LibDem Executive Councilllors will say I am “vexatious” and wasting money in asking this question. Well, they all obviously have a lot to hide!
We paid NPS architects fees of £151,507.95:-
“This relates to payments made to NPS for the descign and contract administration of the project. It includes the following professional disciplines: Architecture, Quantity Surveying, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Project Management and Clerk of Works. These fees are calculated at rates within the Service Level Contract between Stockport Council and NPS. In accordance with the industry norm, fees are calculated as a percentate of the contract value. NPS’s fee levels are benchmarked against nationally collated and published fee guidance to demonstrate Value for Money.
Professional fees of £69,336 – the sum of £69,336.00 relates to payments made to the main contractors BAM for their professional fees incurred in acccordance with the contract. They were included in the original tender sum.”
The Council has explained that these are payments to NPS but include payments for the services of several disciplines as well as Architecture. They further “explain” that those professional fees are calculated as a % of the contract value. There is no quarrel with the % basis; however, I have no idea what that value is. And it (the contract value) ultimately governs “reasonable value” and all consequent fees but most importantly profit. I would like to have a note of the contract value and profits and where BAM – the main contractors – fit in. But, I can’t because it would be “vexatious” to ask.
Professional fees of £69,336 – Paid to BAM for fees in accordance with a contract and an original tender sum – neither of which I have any knowledge of. I can’t ask because it would be “vexatious”.
Why have these fees been paid for work on a site which has not even been made safe from acknowledged toxic waste.
5/10/05
The premises to cost overall £5,500,000
To be funded from DfSE grants 45% 2,475,000
Balance from Council’s capital programme 55% 3,025,000
5,500,000
No mention here of the future of the existing schools and the land. Was the £3,025,000 capital programme to be a completeley fresh section of the programme or was the sale of the Fir Tree etc seen on the horizon?
12/12/05
Review – Accommodation cost now estimated £5,681,000
Plus external works 444,000
Abnormal foundations (piling) 100,000
Drainage 133,000
Prelim external works 145,000
Services – phone, gas, elec, water 50,000
Contingencies 318,000
Other “property services” 550,000 (Wow! NPS rides again)
Planning, consult, Topo 82,000
Total £7,503,000
May – July 2006
Planning – risk of failure if application rejected, (but Grimleys appointed)
Funding shortfall will lead to ultimate failure of the project if not addressed – unable to enter a contract.
March 2007
Concern is expressed over funding! Donna Sager to look at other sources.
Look backwards again. Having been seemingly unaware of the monumental costs not considered in the first place (5/10/05), does it not now put in doubt the decision that refurbishing was not a way to go and not impractical?
22/03/2008
Now the total cost is £9,930,000
How has the funding been made available?
supported borrowing £2,902,000
allocations (not specified) 259,000
capital receipts 6,679,000
£9,840,000
Error in adding total but irrelevant 90,000
Total £9,930,000
In any event, the Finance Director under some pressure produced an explanation (at least a partial one) of the increase to £9,930,000. From £5.5 million to £7.5 million and then £8,5 million in a short space of time. His assistant wrote to us naming no less than 6 funds being accessed – capital receipts being one – including the sale of Edgeley, Taxal and the Fir Tree sites.
Cost £8.5 million – funding would be government supported £4,036,000
grants 2,744,430
council – unsupported 43,073
capital receipts 1,676,000
£8,500,000
The Council added £768,431 and fees/costs to the lowest tender to meet the £8,500,000.
But, costs have now risen.
Project Executive –
Surveys have revealed arsenic levels which are high and have to be removed.
Brown asbestos is present – remove? No actually they didn’t bother:-
Is this really the same scheme as described in the 05/10/2005 statutory proposal – is it still valid?
Analysis of the £6,679,000 is vital to put the jigsaw together – by property, buyer, value. However, it is “vexatious” to ask, so I will never know.
Is there any connection between any of the buyers (or their agents) of Fir Tree, Taxal, Edgeley and the contractors (lowest tender)?
The higher costs include
Increased floor area £1,330,000
Planning 590,000
Inflation to 2009 1,140,000
The inflation calculation does seem high but I am not allowed to ask details of the calculation – vexatious apparently.
What invoices were used. The costs are very much towards the end of the project.
How did Donna Sager comply with the Prince 2 accounting system with the Schweinerie documented above?
All these financial issues were raised with the Audit Committee to no avail. What is the point of the Audit Committee?
I attended council meetings. I knew the sale of redundant school land was not making the sums they expected. That was how they intended to pay for the toxic waste dump school. How are you going to pay for it? I asked. Don’t be vexatious, they replied – and they still do. They had to borrow £5 million at the last minute to fund the school.
They spent the money originally given by the Government for the new school on the other projects above.
£5.5m in October 2005 to £9.94m in April 2006, and I am “vexatious” for questioning this rise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/69/contents
Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889
