Calls for independent ballot inquiry dismissed

Senior Haringey councillors have rejected calls for an independent inquiry into an estate regeneration ballot that was subject to allegations of “interference and impropriety”.

Cabinet members said in a report that the council had “not received evidence relating to misconduct by officers,” that would warrant an independent review of the ballot of residents on Love Lane Estate in Tottenham.

The resident ballot last summer (mandatory as part of Greater London Authority stipulations on estate redevelopment), was the first of its kind in Haringey. It saw 55% of voters back the council’s plan to demolish the estate to make way for the 2,600-home High Road West development.

But in November, the council’s overview and scrutiny committee called for an independent review of the ballot after hearing allegations officers had collected votes and put “pressure” on residents. According to a report, the committee “received emails from local campaign groups and residents with allegations of interference and impropriety”.

During a cabinet meeting last month, campaigners urged councillors to back an independent review after claiming the outcome of the vote could have been affected by “problems” with the ballot process.

Speaking during a deputation to the meeting, campaigner Keith Dobie claimed residents had raised concerns about “door-to-door vote collection by council officers.” He also stated that tenants had not been provided with “sufficiently honest, accurate and unbiased information”.

Keith warned that the council may not be able to deliver on its promise that existing Love Lane tenants will be offered new council homes on the High Road West scheme.

According to the cabinet response to the scrutiny report, Civica, the independent body appointed to oversee the ballot, carried out a door-knocking exercise with a mobile ballot box “to provide an opportunity for residents to vote in person if they wished to” – but they were not accompanied by council officers.

Councillors had raised concerns after learning that four sealed ballots had been collected in this way – a practice that would not be permitted in a UK general election.

Civica added in its response that phone calls and door knocking were used “sensitively” to engage with estate residents, stating that, although officers would provide information to residents on how to vote, they “did not vote on behalf of residents or tell them to vote a certain way”.

The council has denied claims of systematic vote rigging, advising that it followed independently advised protocols throughout the entire process.

Peter O’Brien, the council’s assistant director of regeneration and economic development, said in November that the collection of sealed ballots was “instigated by individuals with severe mobility issues.”

Residents of Carpenters Estate in East London have similarly accused Newham Council of using ‘underhand tactics’ to secure ‘yes’ votes in a recent resident ballot, to push redevelopment ahead.

Data obtained through a Freedom of Information Request revealed that Newham Council and its housing partner, Populo Living, spent at least £350,000 on campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote.

A spokesperson for the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), solicitors working on behalf of the campaign group Focus E15, (which includes residents of the Carpenters Estate), said: “The huge resources available to local authorities to secure a ‘yes’ vote to demolition, compared with residents who have access to none, is staggering. This is certainly unfair and potentially unlawful.”

PILC has written to GLA deputy mayor for housing, Tom Copley, urging for actions to be taken to ensure a ‘level playing field’ in estate ballots, calling for the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to cap local authority spending on persuasive canvassing, and also provide funding for residents wishing to run their own campaigns.

Khaled Moyeed, chair of Haringey’s overview and scrutiny committee, called for an independent review of the Love Lane Estate ballot. He told last month’s meeting: “We are talking about a historic ballot that has taken place […] In years to come, if this has gone ahead, we do not want to hear allegations that the ballot was questionable. Surely an independent review is the right thing to do?

“An independent review will clarify what actually happened. If the council is right [in stating] that nothing happened that calls into question the integrity and the validity of the ballot, then the independent review will scrutinise that evidence objectively and give the council a clean bill of health.”

However, Ruth Gordon, cabinet member for housebuilding, placemaking and economic development, said there was “no evidence” to suggest an independent organisation should be appointed to investigate the ballot process.

Cllr Gordon acknowledged four sealed ballot papers were collected at the request of residents but said Civica had advised this did not invalidate the process.

Cllr Gordon added that any complaints should be dealt with in a “fair and consistent way” using the council’s formal complaints procedure.

Haringey Council has agreed to carry out a “lessons learnt” review designed to improve its engagement with residents.