Letter sent to Derek MacKay in response to rejection of appeal;

I received your decision on 29^th March re our demand for a re-ballot of Largs BID. Now that you have finally rejected our appeal, I am taking the case to the Scottish Parliamentary Ombudsman, and hope he is impartial and will give us the justice we deserve.

I will, however, raise some points in answer to your letter of 28 March 2013.

Firstly, I note in the fourth paragraph a requirement not included in the letter of 12^th December from Christine Gresswell . Therefore the letter was confusing. The missing words were --   

The regulations “require complainants to specify reasons for a request that a ballot be declared void”

 My mother took the documentation to Kenneth Gibson MSP at his Largs surgery on 15^th December to ask him what exactly it meant. He advised her that each complainant had to choose which regulation applied to their complaint, and we should send it as soon as possible.

By the way, on hearing the testimony she had collated, he said he could see no reason why we would not get a re-ballot. However, in his letter to us of 19^th December, he stated “my ministerial colleague, Derek MacKay MSP will adjudicate on this matter. However, given the information supplied by North Ayrshire Council, it would seem to me that the BID ballot is unlikely to be overturned”. This is why we have protested about you adjudicating, totally inappropriate and a conflict of interest, as has been shown.

Despite this, we printed up letters naming the regulations contravened, and gave the choice to as many businesses as we could contact at our busiest time of the year, and posted 30 letters by recorded delivery by 18^th December before Parliament closed.

Your next letter of 10^th January was also vague, and as a result only six people submitted personal letters. There was anger and dismay that, without their permission, your office sent copies to all and sundry. They were entitled to an expectation of privacy.

Next I take issue with your claim that only “two complainants disputed the Returning Officer`s claim that ballot papers had been issued to all businesses”. When owners heard that my mother had written on 9^th November to Elma Murray, we were inundated with owners asking for copies to send also, and we gave out more than 30 copies.

Elma Murray`s assertions that we all received a business plan and ballot paper in the  post is contradicted by a letter from George Hunter, Town Centre Regeneration Manager, on 10^th December in a letter to Kenneth Gibson MSP in which he stated “ Largs Matters circulated a 20 page business plan which accompanied the ballot”.

Also, as your office chose to e-mail me at mid-day on 29^th November, not to my business address, but on my private e-mail address , which you held when I sent you an e-mail on 11^th November (which you ignored), it was purely by chance that I found it in time to comply with the deadline of 30^th November. You gave us less than 24 hours to submit sufficient numbers. This I was able to do only because I had already arranged a meeting for Largs business owners that evening.

We e-mailed 35 signatories that night. Yet, despite meeting the deadline, your office removed 14 complainants from this number, whom I had not managed to contact in time for our collective response to your confusing letter of 12^th December. So, you deprived them of their right to appeal.

One was in hospital having treatment for cancer. Another had voted `yes` in the ballot without knowing all the facts, and was entitled to demand a re-ballot. Another stated he  was duped by Mr Sunil Varu into voting `yes` in the ballot, and had sent a letter of protest to Elma Murray when he realised the financial implications, and asked to rescind his vote.

I could continue, but suffice it to say that you choose to base your decision on 14 complainants. I have a list of 54, some too late to appeal. Some, like Farmfoods who do not get involved in protests.  My mother spoke to Farmfoods Head Office and they confirmed that they had no knowledge of BID being in the west coast, and had not received documentation or a vote. Some like the undertakers who state they would not have ignored any letters from the Council, and did not get a vote. They did not get involved with our protest, but will pay the levy if forced, or not pay if they have an English Head Office and cannot be forced

Your next contention that we could have requested a replacement ballot paper is absurd, when so many of us knew nothing about BID or the ballot!

By the way, those, who did do that, received the ballot paper too late to vote.

But then, I believe you are aware of most of this, and have chosen to be selective and `fudge` the figures to justify rejecting our appeal. We expected nothing less from someone whose remit is to promote BID.

All of these facts we will now present to the ombudsman.  Our fight for justice continues.

Now fight taken to Ombudsman

Today we have sent an e-mail to the office of the Scottish Parliamentary Ombudsman in the next stage of our fight for justice.
One would have thought that with approximately 40 complainants disputing the flawed ballot in Largs that in a democratic society we would have been given a re-ballot. Derek MacKay MSP claims that there are not enough of us to significantly change the result of the BID ballot on 1st November last year. Well we all know otherwise, as does he, - the Minister responsible for BID is determined to prevent us having a fair and free vote here in Largs.
So our Freedom of Information request for the exact number and details of eligible businesses in the Largs BID is with the Commissioner for a ruling.
And now our appeal will go to the Ombudsman. Pity it is the Easter holiday, which will cause more delay. Perhaps that was deliberate. However we will fight on.

Derek MacKay rejects Largs BID appeal

As expected MSP Derek MacKay has rejected our appeal. No surprise there then ! So we now take our case to the Scottish Parliamentary Ombudsman. The given reason is that even if we had  received  ballot papers and voted, it would not have changed the result ! This we know, as he does, to be untrue. Why else refuse a re-ballot ?
The Scottish Government will find that we will fight on for our democratic right to a free and fair vote.

GOOD RESULT from Mull & Iona -  No to BID  !

Just heard result of ballot . 81% businesses voted, and the result was - 37% yes  and 63% NO.
They, of course, had the benefit of seeing the outcome of Oban becoming a BID area. I gather that 29 businesses are currently being taken to court for refusing to pay the first BID levy demand.
Our fight against the imposition of BID continues.

Still no decision re re-ballot for Largs

We discovered that BID did not set up, as planned, in Largs. Seemingly, they have to wait for a decision from Scottish Ministers. Well, that is a relief, and businesses in Largs can "breathe easy" pending, hopefully, a favourable decision. True to form, no one had the decency to inform us of this.
Annabel Goldie, MSP, has been contacting Derek  MacKay, MSP, on our behalf to push for a decision. It is now 4 months since a sufficient number of us met the deadline for the appeal against the validity of the Largs BID result. It has been 2 months since we completed the appeal process, and yet still no decision from   Derek MacKay.
I have received a letter dated 25th March from Kenneth Gibson, MSP, enclosing correspondence from Derek Mackay, stating " this is the first time the Regulations to declare a BID ballot void have been implemented in Scotland and there are no previous examples to draw on. All parties will be notified as soon as my decision is made".
Hardly surprising that we are the first to lodge an appeal within the time frame. BID was set up to allow a 25% vote to legitimise a BID ballot, and , of that only 13% of businesses voting "yes" can enforce the result.
As the local councils do not inform us of the BID process, but leave it up to the BID committee to disguise the process under a " catchy" name,( here it was Largs Matters ), so many of us were kept in the dark, and, judging by voting numbers, by the time we find out about the ballot, BID, etc it is too late to lodge an appeal. Only half of appeals here in Largs have been considered, as the others were time barred - so not only did they get deprived of a vote, but they were also deprived of the right to have their appeal heard. This appears to be the norm elsewhere.
I noted with dismay, that Dunoon (PA23 group) is now a BID district, despite all our efforts to warn them, and, as with Largs, only half of the businesses voted.
Small businesses have a hard enough time surviving in these tough economic times, without the extra tax imposed by BID, and inflicted on us by local councils and the Scottish Government.

Email sent 27/02/13 to scottish ministers

It is now 3 months since we, the disenfranchised, lodged our appeal for a re-ballot of Largs BID, and still we are waiting for justice. The appeal process was finalised a month ago, and we are still awaiting a decision.

You stated that the Scottish Government had no power to prevent Largs BID setting up, as planned, on 19th January, despite the fact that the ballot produced a "yes" result by depriving so many of us of a vote, and also the lack of information, which has been a constant feature of the BID process here in Largs.

Most traders have no knowledge of who are the new committee, and many did not receive a vote for that !  Nor do we know who they have appointed as the Town Centre Manager, but then this has been typical of the contempt shown to us, the business community of Largs, by the BID committee. 

Now, from 1st March, one day from now, we will receive demands for payment of a BID levy. This is disgraceful !  No doubt we will be told that this is legally enforceable. However, without a decision from the Scottish Government regarding our LEGITIMATE demand for a re-ballot, we will fight this infringement of our civil liberties.

We need a decision soon, as without a favourable reply, we intend to take this further

Letter sent today to the commissioner:

Dear Sir,

Largs Business Improvement District (BID) Area.

Request under the Freedom of Information

I represent a group of business owners in Largs who were excluded from the BID ballot which was the responsibility of North Ayrshire Council. Many of us did not receive BID information or a ballot paper, and only found out after the ballot result on 1st November 2012. 

We sent letters of protest to the Returning Officer, Elma Murray,N.A.C. in the following week, but received a dismissive response dated 19th November.

As we continued to find more businesses deprived of the vote, we requested details of the eligible businesses under the Freedom of Information Act. See enclosed copies of letters to the N.A.C. on 21st November, 23rd November, 25th November, 27th November, and finally a letter sent recorded delivery 11th December, which elicited a response.

This was an e-mail, dated 21st December, denying our request. Elma Murray stated that in her view that this information was " exempt information under Section 26 (a)  of the Freedom of Information Scotland) Act 2002. Specifically, Section 13 (4) of the Business Improvement Districts (Scotland) regulations 2007 which prohibits the release to any persons except for the purposes of canvassing persons entitled to vote during the BID ballot"

It is our contention that this was precisely what we wanted " to canvass persons entitled to vote during the BID ballot"

Our request for a review dated 30th December 2012  resulted in a second denial sent 31st January.

We, the businesses of Largs, were entitled to a free and fair vote in this BID ballot. As only 140 voted, we are entitled to know  :

1) how many eligible businesses. Is it 280 as declared in the ballot result ? or is it 313, as Elma Murray stated in her letter to Christine Gresswell , Local Government Division,  on 20th December 2012 ?

2)As more than 30 of us did not receive BID information or a ballot paper, we want to know the exact number of business owners in Largs deprived of their electoral rights.

We should be able to phone each business to determine who was included/excluded in this ballot. The self-appointed Bid steering group have this information, but we, the affected businesses, are denied it. Where is the justice ? Why should the Council responsible for organising a legal ballot prevent the true number of businesses involved being known? Justice has to be seen to be done.

Therefore , as with our appeal registered with Scottish Ministers, we now appeal to the Commissioner to  rule that North Ayrshire Council comply with our request under the Freedom of Information Act. The purpose of this legislation was meant to prevent this kind of behaviour by public bodies, and justice can only thrive if the process is open and above board ,which we deserve in our battle for our electoral rights.