15th March 2026
How it was
And how it is now
A Romiley resident has challenged Stockport Council after her correspondence about environmental concerns at a local site was formally classified as “vexatious” under the Freedom of Information Act.
Sheila Oliver, who describes herself as a local authority researcher and member of the Citizens 2022 Committee, raised concerns about what she says is the destruction of a protected Local Wildlife Site and amenity land around Padden Brook.
Mrs Oliver says she contacted councillors and council officers over a period of more than seven months seeking action regarding what she described as “ongoing environmental damage” at the site. According to her complaint, she received no response for more than 220 days before being told that the activity in question had been described by the council as “improvement” or “tidying up.”
In her formal complaint to the council’s Monitoring Officer, Mrs Oliver said the decision by an Information Governance officer to classify her communications as “vexatious” was unjustified.
She wrote that her correspondence was “fact-based, respectful and driven by public interest,” arguing that the repeated contact was necessary because of the lack of response from elected officials. She said the label had caused distress and risked discouraging residents from raising legitimate concerns about environmental protection.
Mrs Oliver requested a review of the decision, an apology from the council, and confirmation that the environmental concerns regarding Padden Brook would be properly assessed.
In a response sent by the council’s Assistant Director for Governance and Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, Stockport Council confirmed that a formal internal review had already taken place.
The council stated that the decision to apply Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act — which allows authorities to refuse requests considered “vexatious” — had been reviewed and upheld.
According to the council, the classification was made in line with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That guidance states that a request may be considered vexatious if it places a disproportionate burden on a public authority, lacks serious purpose or value, or forms part of a pattern of unreasonable behaviour.
However, the council added that each case is considered on its own merits and that such decisions must be “evidence-based and proportionate.”
Mrs Oliver has been advised that if she remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, she has the right to escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the independent body responsible for regulating the Freedom of Information Act.
The council also noted that while the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman does not usually investigate complaints solely about Freedom of Information decisions, it may consider cases where wider issues of maladministration are alleged.
The dispute comes amid wider local interest in the condition and protection of green spaces across the Romiley area, particularly around waterways and designated wildlife sites.
