https://substack.com/@theromileygazette?
15th January 2026
By Gazette Reporter
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request questioning the benefits received by two senior council officers has been rejected by Stockport Council, which said the request was “vexatious” and served no wider public interest.
The exchange, dating back to 2008 but recently resurfacing in public discussion, followed a request from local resident Sheila Oliver, who asked why two senior officers — John Schultz and Jane Scullion — received identical telephone allowances and why Ms Scullion was entitled to a lease car despite claiming no business mileage.
In a formal written response, the council confirmed that both officers received the same telephone allowance during the 2006/07 financial year because it was a standard benefit applied to all eligible employees.
The council also stated that earlier concerns about discrepancies between the two officers’ taxable benefits were no longer valid, citing an internal review letter issued in June 2008.
However, the council refused to answer further questions relating to Ms Scullion’s use of a lease car, arguing that the request fell within Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows public bodies to reject requests deemed vexatious.
“Disproportionate and personal”
In its response, signed by Data Protection and FOI Officer Claire Naven, the council said the request formed part of a series of similar enquiries focused on the salaries and benefits of the same two individuals.
The council argued that it had already provided “very detailed information” in the interests of transparency, and that continuing to respond to further questions would place a disproportionate burden on staff time.
“We believe that the time taken to respond to this request and the resulting distraction of staff from their normal duties is disproportionate to any possible benefit in terms of the wider public interest,” the letter stated.
It went on to say that the request had “no serious purpose or value other than to [the requester] personally” and accused the correspondence of being designed to cause annoyance and harassment.
The council also expressed concern that such requests could undermine confidence in the FOI system itself, describing the legislation as an important tool for transparency that should not be misused.
Lease car scheme clarified
Despite rejecting part of the request, the council did outline the rules governing its lease car scheme. According to the response, the scheme is open to permanent employees who hold a full driving licence and fall into specific categories, including chief officers, directors, management band employees, and staff who travel more than 2,000 business miles per year.
Ms Oliver was advised of her right to request an internal review of the decision and, if dissatisfied, to escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Ongoing debate over transparency
The case highlights the fine balance councils must strike between openness about public spending and the protection of staff from what they consider repeated or targeted enquiries.
While the council maintains it acted within the law, campaigners continue to argue that questions about senior pay and benefits remain a legitimate area of public scrutiny.
Mon 30/06/2008 12:54
Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1178).
John Schultz and Jane Scullion received the same telephone allowance in the year 06/07 because this is a standard allowance for all employees eligible to receive it.
Your comment about Jane Scullion’s taxable benefit being half of John Schultz’s taxable benefit is now not applicable based on the contents of Ged Lucas’ internal review letter (request ref 1066) to you dated 3rd June 2008.
In relation to the remainder of your request in which you asked: ‘Why does Ms Scullion get the benefit of a lease car when she claims no mileage whatsoever? Does she ever go anywhere in this lease car then? If not, then why am I paying for it?’ we will not be responding to this as we maintain that this is a vexatious request within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
The FOIA is an important piece of legislation designed to promote and ensure transparency across the public sector. We believe that requests such as this only serve to damage the credibility and reputation of the Freedom of Information framework.
This request is the latest in a series of requests relating to the salaries and benefits of John Schultz and Jane Scullion, some of which are very personal. We believe that the time taken to respond to this request and the resulting distraction of staff from their normal duties is disproportionate to any possible benefit in terms of the wider public interest. Your request has no serious purpose or value other than to you personally, as we have already provided very detailed information about the salary and benefits of the individuals in question in the interests of transparency. We believe that this request is designed to cause annoyance and serves to harass the Council; a fact that we maintain is supported by a series of requests along this theme, namely those with references 975, 1016 and 1066 (which was also reviewed internally) and the flippant tone of this request and previous related correspondence on this theme.
Regardless of the above and for your information, the Council’s lease car scheme is open to permanent employees in the following groups who hold a full current driving licence:
- Chief Executive and Directors;
- Service Directors;
- Management Band employees; and
- Other employees who travel in excess of 2,000 annual business miles.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 30 May 2008 22:39
To: FOI Officer
Cc: John Schultz; Jane Scullion
Subject: taxable benefits of top bananas
Dear FoI officer
Why do Mr Schultz and Ms Scullion get exactly the same telephone benefit?
Why does Ms Scullion get the benefit of a lease car when she claims no mileage whatsoever? Does she ever go anywhere in this lease car then? If not, then why am I paying for it?
Why is Ms Scullion’s taxable benefit roughly half that of Mr. Schulz’s?
Kind regards
Sheila
