23rd September 2026
Dear Mr Cullen,
I am writing to make a formal complaint about the conduct of Vicki Bates in her capacity as Chief Governance Officer and Monitoring Officer of Stockport Council.
I recognise that complaints of this kind would ordinarily be directed to the Monitoring Officer. Because Ms Bates is herself the subject of this complaint, I am writing to you directly as Head of Paid Service, and I ask that this complaint be handled by the Deputy Monitoring Officer or another officer entirely independent of Ms Bates, given the evident conflict of interest in her handling a complaint about her own conduct.
Summary of complaint
Ms Bates has, over a sustained period and across multiple unrelated matters, refused to substantively engage with, acknowledge, or respond to formal correspondence and statutory information requests that I have submitted concerning matters of public safety and land contamination. I set out below why I believe this pattern amounts to a failure of her duties as Monitoring Officer, and a breach of the Council’s own published policy on how such matters should be handled.
The evidence
1. Padden Brook — blanket restriction (24 August 2026)
On 21 August 2026 I submitted a formal Stage 1 complaint concerning planning enforcement delay at Padden Brook, raising detailed, specific questions about investigations undertaken, enforcement decisions recorded, and the case’s status after more than two years unresolved.
Ms Bates replied on 24 August 2026, not addressing any of the substantive questions raised, but instead confirming that all my FOI/EIR requests concerning Padden Brook would be deemed vexatious and would not be acknowledged, and that all other communications on the subject would be treated as “unreasonably persistent” under the Council’s Unacceptable Actions by Complainants Policy, with correspondence diverted to an inbox reviewed only weekly.
2. The underlying EIR refusal (2 April 2025 – 1 July 2025)
The first formal vexatious finding on this subject traces to an EIR request of 2 April 2025, asking a specific, answerable question: whether the Council had investigated land instability at Padden Brook, and which officers were involved. This was refused under EIR regulation 12(4)(b) and FOIA section 14(1). My internal review of that refusal, submitted 3 May 2025, was upheld on 1 July 2025 by Liz Sykes, Information Governance Manager — an officer within Ms Bates’ own department, raising a further question as to the independence of that review.
3. Compstall Mill — total silence (since 8 July 2026)
On 8 July 2026 I wrote to the Council’s Head of Planning and Contaminated Land Team, copied to Ms Bates among others, raising specific technical concerns about the adequacy of the contaminated land investigation for the Compstall Mill redevelopment — a site with confirmed elevated arsenic, lead and asbestos. I asked four direct questions, including whether the investigation had been independently reviewed by the Council’s own contaminated land specialist.
As of the date of this complaint, many weeks later, I have received no response of any kind — not a substantive answer, not an acknowledgement, and not any indication that the matter will be considered vexatious. It has simply been left unanswered.
Why this is a matter for a conduct complaint, not a disagreement about outcomes
I want to be clear about what I am, and am not, complaining about. I am not complaining that the Council has disagreed with me on the merits of any of these matters. I am complaining that on two entirely separate subjects — a planning enforcement dispute and a technical contaminated-land question — the pattern of response has been identical: no substantive engagement, and either a blanket refusal to acknowledge further correspondence, or simply no response at all.
The Council’s own April 2026 policy on unreasonable complainant actions states, in terms, that restrictions on a complainant’s correspondence should be a last resort, tailored and proportionate to the specific behaviour concerned, and not applied as a blanket measure. A blanket restriction covering “Padden Brook and the surrounding area,” applied regardless of the specificity or reasonableness of any individual request, appears on its face to be inconsistent with the Council’s own policy. Total silence on a wholly separate, unrelated technical matter is harder still to reconcile with a monitoring officer’s duty to ensure the Council acts lawfully and that citizens’ statutory rights to information are properly respected.
I would also note that in her 24 August 2026 letter, Ms Bates stated that she had considered the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 and found no adverse impact from the restriction imposed. I have seen no evidence of the basis for that assessment, and I ask that it be produced as part of any investigation into this complaint.
What I am asking the Council to do
- Investigate whether Ms Bates’ handling of my correspondence on Padden Brook and Compstall Mill was consistent with the Council’s own Unacceptable Actions by Complainants Policy (April 2026), and with her duties as Monitoring Officer.
- Arrange for a substantive response to my letter of 8 July 2026 concerning Compstall Mill, from an officer other than Ms Bates.
- Review whether the Padden Brook communications restriction was properly and proportionately applied, given that it was imposed following correspondence that included, among other things, routine journalistic requests for comment ahead of publication.
- Confirm who, other than Ms Bates, reviewed and authorised the 24 August 2026 restriction, and produce the Human Rights Act/Equality Act assessment referred to in that letter.
- Confirm the process by which this complaint will be handled independently of Ms Bates, and provide a named contact and expected timescale for response.
I look forward to your acknowledgement of this complaint within the Council’s usual complaints-handling timescale.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Oliver Editor, Romiley Gazette
