Sefton Homes Row
An article from the Daily Post 13th February 2006.

A bitter war of words in homes vote battle.
Claims and counter-claims have followed conflicting ballots on council house transfer.
Exclusive report by Graham Davies
What do you think? Email us with your views at letters@dailypost.co.uk or write to us at The Daily Post, PO Box 48, Old Hall Street, Liverpool L69 3EB

A GROUP of campaigners accused of bribery and intimidation over a crucial council ballot in Sefton last night urged Merseyside Police: "Arrest us". The four men, from the Sefton Defend Council Housing (SDCH) campaign, said they could prove they were innocent of the allegations made by Sefton Council. The authority suggested the Unison-funded group, including James Reardon, Mike O'Brien, Paul Cooke and Peter Huyton, rigged a ballot to stop the transfer of council houses to a housing association. Last night, the Daily Post gained access to Sefton's dossier of evidence against the men, which contains around 2,000 serious complaints from members of the public.
The file, used to force through a second ballot in which tenants voted "yes" for transfer, includes claims that SDCH members:
• Targeted elderly people and bullied them into voting "no".
• Offered tenants financial bribes and "a pint for a vote".
• Broke into blocks of flats and intimidated tenants.
• Tampered with mail, forged ballot papers and wrote fake council letters in an effort to sway the vote.
• Distributed misleading information.
But SDCH members insisted they had done nothing wrong and were the victims of a "smear campaign" to mislead tenants into voting "yes". They questioned why Sefton had not pressed charges against them when they were alleged to have been involved in illegal activities. The campaigners, who deny every allegation, believe the public might have been tricked into thinking the activities were carried out by SDCH members when they insist they were not.
Co-chairman Mr O'Brien said last night: "Some of the things that are being said are scandalous. We are being accused of serious criminal offences, like interfering with Her Majesty's mail, but they have never got the police involved and you have to wonder why. "The council should put up or shut up, and call the police. We will be able to prove we are innocent. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. But, apparently, in Sefton you are guilty until proven innocent. The council can't take the fact that they were beaten fair and square by a very small group of people and that's why they have resorted to this."
Mr Reardon said: "We want Sefton to show us the evidence they say they've got on us. They're saying we have entered high-rise blocks to intimidate tenants. Every floor of council blocks has CCTV cameras monitoring them 24 hours a day. We are asking Sefton council to show us CCTV footage that proves what they are saying about us."
Last night, Sefton defended its decision not to press charges, saying it had weighed up options and decided a warning letter would be the most effective way of dealing with the group. A spokesman said: "We took legal advice and we balanced everything up. We didn't want to waste taxpayers' money if it turned out we would not be able to do anything. It was deemed to be more successful if we communicated directly with the parties involved and asked them to refrain from the practices that were causing us concern."
In November, the four members received letters from Sefton solicitors accusing them of various activities and threatening legal action if they persisted. The four said nobody else from the 16-strong group received a letter. The men said they felt "intimidated" by the tone of the letters and believed the council was attempting to stop them campaigning.
Mr Reardon, Mr Cooke and Mr Huyton were accused of entering high-rise flats without licence or consent and of distributing misleading information, with Mr Huyton also accused of making threats. Mr O'Brien received a letter alleging he had intimidated tenants and "made false accusations in respect of their voting rights".
The letter stated: "Whilst the council fully recognises and respects your right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, we consider that the actions of which you have been accused today cross the line from any legitimate exercise of these freedoms to illegitimate intimidation. Without, therefore, wishing to stifle your right to criticise or comment upon central or local government policy or to seek to persuade others to your point of view, we would advise you that the council will do everything in its power to ensure that its tenants are able to use their free and democratic right to vote in any way they see fit, free from scare tactics, intimidation and the frightening of vulnerable tenants. We put you on notice that, should any further evidence become available to the council of intimidation, of threats or false accusations by yourself or associates, the council will not hesitate to use the power of the courts to protect its tenants or staff from such actions."
In response to the men's claims that the council intimidated them, the Sefton spokesman said: "Everyone has the right to protest peacefully but these people were stepping over the line and we simply asked them to stop doing that."
Sefton held the first ballot last August, in which 55% of tenants voted against transfer to One Vision Housing, from a turnout of 69%. The housing association had promised to spend £198.1m on repairs and improvements in five years, and more than £610.8m by 2035. Housing officials said the result was a surprise because research leading up to the ballot suggested up to 60% of residents were in favour of the transfer with only 7% opposed.
After the authority revealed its allegations of intimidation and bribery, a second ballot was held in November, in which 71% of tenants voted "yes" from a turnout of 55%. During the second ballot, residents in favour of One Vision set up the Tenants For Transfer campaign, which was publicly supported by Sefton council. Each ballot is understood to have cost Sefton around £800,000.
A Merseyside Police spokeswoman said last night: "We have not received any complaints from Sefton council, so therefore there is nothing for us to investigate."
MPs join fight for probe into validity of Sefton Council's second ballot on housing transfer THE SOCH campaign has enlisted the support of a number of MPs and is demanding a Westminster inquiry into the validity of the second ballot. Crosby's Labour MP, Claire Curtis-Thomas, has called for an investigation by the National Audit Office, while Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Grimsby, has written to government ministers on the group's behalf.
Members have put together their own dossier of allegations, which have all been dismissed by the council, including claims that
• Sefton paid for letters to be sent out from a senior member of the housing association, who urged tenants to vote "yes" without revealing his position.
• The council produced a "scare scenario" about job and service cuts that was "unsupported" by financial facts.
• Councillors prejudiced the vote by being quoted in leaflets despite instructions to remain silent During the second campaign, council tenants received a photocopied, hand-written letter from a Paul Taylor, beginning with the phrase: "Dear neighbour". In it, he urged tenants to vote "yes", saying: "You may be wondering why I have taken the time to write to you. "It's because I am a tenant just like you. I have no political agenda, it's simple, I just want the best for myself, my family, my friends and all the tenants." Nowhere did Mr Taylor mention he was the vice chairman of the shadow board of One Vision Housing. The envelopes in which the letters were sent bear the same unique reference number found on council documents sent to individual tenants. SDCH believes this proves Sefton paid for the letters to be distributed.
But a Sefton council spokesman said: "We did not pay for Paul Taylor's correspondence either to be produced or delivered." Mr Taylor said addresses were obtained from public libraries and the letters were funded by local businesses who were concerned about the consequences if transfer did not go ahead. He added: "We arranged for the letters to be distributed by a corporate mailing company, which is available to everyone, because that was the cheapest option. It had nothing to do with the council. What I wrote in the letter were my own personal feelings as a tenant. I have misled nobody. It was an open and honest letter. There was no questionnaire to follow. At that point, the shadow board had disbanded, so I wasn't vice chairman then. I have a democratic right to say what I want."
SDCH supporters also believe the council misled tenants about what would happen if transfer did not go ahead, but Sefton was last night standing by its figures. Austin Mitchell, a campaigner for the retention of council homes, wrote to local government minister David Milliband, detailing the group's accusations. He wrote: "Effectively council staff were threatened with redundancy unless the tenants voted 'yes'. This was both unjustified and unfair."
The council spokesman said in response: "The financial position was clear and unambiguous right from the beginning." During both campaigns, leaflets were sent out with comments from party leaders telling tenants they were behind the transfer and detailing what the outcomes of each vote would be. In the second ballot, councillors from the Labour group wrote to tenants, listing the benefits of the "yes" result, and saying: "Transfer can only go ahead if you vote 'yes'."
But SDCH has kept copies of comments made by Birkdale Lib-Dem councillor Simon Shaw, in an internet chatroom discussion about the transfer before the first ballot. He told users of southport.gb.com: "I'm fairly certain we've been advised not to express a public view on this subject."
Campaigners suggest the council employed "dirty tricks" and broke its own rules by using councillors to sway the second vote. But the council spokesman said: "I don't know where they're coming from. "Before the ballot, the council consulted with tenants and they chose the option of transfer, which was adopted as the council's favoured option."
Mrs Curtis-Thomas called for an investigation, saying: "I find it incredible that you can have a vote and because you didn't like the result you just do it again."
Sefton's dossier of allegations AMONG the evidence in Sefton's dossier, seen by the Daily Post, was:
• A letter from a tenant: "One thing that did concern me, even frighten me, was I would be asked to leave my home because I'm a single person with one child living in a three-bedroom house. "It was only when I asked a housing officer that I was completely reassured."
• A forged letter sent to tenants. It had been crudely pasted on to council letterhead paper and contained grammatical errors. It read: "We as a council wish to inform you that, if you decide to vote 'no' in the ballot process, then it would be acceptable to do so and it would allow us as a council to become a stronger authority in the future."
• A memo detailing a council worker's conversation with a caller read: "Volunteers were instructed to pose as council officers, visit tenants and to ask them for their ballot papers. "He claimed that, if they didn't offer up their ballot papers, he was able to offer £10 to buy their votes. He states he was urged to target any tenant, but particularly the elderly, as they were 'likely to be more gullible'."
• A letter from a tenant claiming to have been subject to a campaign of abuse: "Had groups of known DCH supporters congregating behind my home to the point where my partner and children felt too intimidated to go out in our own back garden."
• WHEN the Daily Post viewed the file, the identities of complainants were kept confidential to respect data protection laws.

Mr S Watts, Mr J Reardon, Mr P Cooke, Mr M O'Brien, Mr P Huyton and Mr J Cunningham of the Sefton Defend Council Housing Group outside Copy Lane Police Station, requesting that if Sefton has proper evidence then they should be arrested.