To: Vicki Bates (vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk); Katie Moores (katie.moores@stockport.gov.uk); liz.sykes@Stockport.gov.uk; michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk; leader@stockport.gov.uk; Lisa Smart – Enquiries (enquiries@lisasmart.org.uk)

Subject: Stage 2 Complaint – Apparent maladministration in handling of planning enforcement concerns and application of vexatious complainant restrictions (Padden Brook)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally escalate this matter as a Stage 2 complaint. This complaint concerns serious failings in the council’s handling of my planning enforcement concerns relating to Padden Brook, and the subsequent decision to designate me as a vexatious complainant.

In my view, the council’s actions demonstrate procedural failings, lack of transparency, and disproportionate application of restrictive communication measures, resulting in a denial of meaningful access to the complaints and planning enforcement processes.

If this matter were to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, I consider it likely the findings would include fault causing injustice, for the reasons set out below.

1. Failure to properly and demonstrably consider planning enforcement concerns

I have raised planning enforcement concerns regarding Padden Brook on multiple occasions. However:

  • The council has not provided a clear, reasoned explanation of how these concerns were assessed
  • There is insufficient evidence that a proportionate and documented enforcement assessment was undertaken in response to the matters raised
  • Where assessments were carried out, the outcomes have not been clearly communicated in a way that allows meaningful scrutiny or challenge

In Ombudsman terms, this raises concern that the council may have failed to properly consider relevant information or failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision-making, which would amount to maladministration.

2. Lack of transparency and inadequate reasoning

The council has not provided:

  • A full explanation of the evidential basis for its decisions regarding enforcement action (or non-action)
  • Clear reasoning showing how my concerns were evaluated against planning policy and enforcement thresholds
  • Sufficient detail to allow me to understand or challenge the decisions reached

A failure to provide adequate reasoning is a recognised form of fault, particularly where it prevents a complainant from effectively exercising their right to challenge decisions.

3. Disproportionate application of vexatious complainant status

The decision to classify me as a vexatious complainant appears to be disproportionate and procedurally deficient.

In particular:

  • There is insufficient evidence that the threshold for vexatious classification has been properly met
  • The decision appears to have been used as a mechanism to restrict engagement rather than manage genuinely unreasonable behaviour
  • No clear explanation has been provided demonstrating why less restrictive alternatives were not considered

The effect of this decision has been to significantly restrict my ability to pursue legitimate planning enforcement concerns through normal council channels.

In Ombudsman terms, this is likely to be considered fault causing injustice, particularly where it restricts access to public authority complaint and enforcement processes.

4. Procedural unfairness and lack of meaningful review

I have not been provided with a fair opportunity to:

  • Challenge the evidence used to support the vexatious classification
  • Obtain an independent review of the decision in a meaningful way
  • Understand how the decision complies with the council’s own policy framework

The absence of a robust and transparent review process is a further indicator of procedural fault.

5. Injustice caused

As a direct result of the above issues:

  • My planning enforcement concerns have not been fully or transparently addressed
  • I have been prevented from effectively engaging with statutory processes
  • I have been subject to communication restrictions without adequate justification or review safeguards

This represents a clear and ongoing injustice.

6. Remedy sought

To resolve this complaint, I require the council to:

  1. Withdraw or formally review the vexatious complainant designation, applying clear policy criteria and documented reasoning
  2. Provide a full and reasoned account of how my planning enforcement concerns have been assessed, including outcomes and decision rationale
  3. Confirm what enforcement assessments have been carried out in relation to Padden Brook, and provide relevant summaries of those decisions
  4. Demonstrate how the decision to impose restrictions complies with the council’s own policy and principles of proportionality
  5. Ensure my underlying planning enforcement concerns are considered on their merits going forward, regardless of complaint handling status
  6. Provide a fully reasoned Stage 2 response addressing each point raised

7. Escalation

If this complaint is not resolved satisfactorily at Stage 2, I will escalate the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman on the basis of:

  • Maladministration
  • Failure to properly consider relevant information
  • Lack of adequate reasoning and transparency
  • Disproportionate restriction of access to complaint and enforcement processes

Given the nature of the issues, I consider it likely the Ombudsman would find fault causing injustice.

I look forward to your substantive response within the council’s published timescales.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver
Editor, The Romiley Gazette