https://theromileygazette.substack.com/publish/posts/published

2nd January 2026

Questions have been raised about how senior figures at Stockport Council responded after being alerted to alleged financial irregularities estimated at around £6 million.

The concerns were reportedly brought to the attention of Alex Ganotis during his tenure as leader of Stockport Council. At the time, Mr Ganotis also held a senior position at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). There has been no finding of wrongdoing against Mr Ganotis, and the claims themselves have not been formally substantiated.

Correspondence relating to the matter had previously been described by Stockport Council as “vexatious”, a classification that can limit further engagement under information governance rules. The use of that designation in connection with high-value financial concerns has since prompted criticism from local residents and governance campaigners.

Statutory Expectations

Under local government law, councillors — particularly those in leadership roles — are expected to ensure that significant financial concerns are referred to appropriate statutory officers. These include the council’s Section 151 officer, who has a legal responsibility for financial propriety, and the monitoring officer, who oversees standards and legality.

Good governance guidance indicates that when substantial financial irregularities are raised, elected members should ensure that:

  • The matter is assessed by qualified finance or audit professionals
  • Existing internal or external audit mechanisms are engaged where appropriate
  • Decisions and assessments are properly documented
  • Concerns are not dismissed without due consideration

While councillors are not expected to conduct investigations themselves, they are expected to ensure that concerns are handled through proper channels.

Use of “Vexatious” Classification

The classification of correspondence as vexatious is typically used where repeated or abusive communications place a disproportionate burden on a public authority. Transparency advocates note that applying this label to matters involving significant public expenditure can be contentious, particularly if it is perceived to limit scrutiny.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has previously stated that public bodies should apply the vexatious designation sparingly and with clear justification, especially where issues of public interest are involved.

Public Interest Considerations

The matter has drawn attention due to Mr Ganotis’s simultaneous senior role at the ICO, an organisation responsible for overseeing information rights and transparency across the public sector. Governance experts say that dual roles can increase the importance of clear processes and demonstrable independence in decision-making.

Residents have called for greater clarity regarding how the concerns were assessed internally and whether any independent review was considered at the time.

Council Position

Stockport Council has previously stated that it operates robust financial controls and audit processes and that it takes all concerns seriously. There is no public record of a formal finding of financial misconduct arising from the claims.

The council has not indicated that any disciplinary or enforcement action resulted from the issues raised.

As councils nationwide face increasing financial pressures, the handling of historic financial concerns continues to be viewed as a test of transparency and accountability in local government.

The Romiley Gazette approached relevant parties for comment.