Meeting with FSB

I refused to accept the decision from the allocated officer at the Office of the Ombudsman, as I believed that it did not address the relevant issues re Largs BID. I am still awaiting the outcome of the subsequent review by the Ombudsman. To date I have only received an apology, on 17th August, for the delay.
Meantime we are meeting next week with representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, FSB, in response to our complaints of lack of action re the scourge of BID.
WE WILL NOT GIVE UP.
In a supposedly democratic country, we will not accept a `rigged` ballot with 82 known to have been deprived of a ballot paper in order to declare a "yes" result for BID.
I did not expect to be still calling for a re-ballot TEN MONTHS  after the event.
WE WILL NOT GIVE UP.

Largs traders denied their democratic rights

After a 5 month battle to get the list of eligible businesses involved in Largs BID,  on receipt of the list I   managed to identify 82 of us  who did not receive a ballot paper . No doubt there are more but I had to meet the deadline from the Ombudsman of 17th May, so I supplied this data as an important part of our appeal for justice.  ALL TO NO AVAIL !  The Ombudsman will take no action.
Just what will it take to overturn this `rigged` "yes" ballot result ?
I have contacted the Federation of Small Business and demanded help. They must have numerous members throughout Scotland who have had BID foisted on them by the combined forces of a self-appointed BID committee, local council, and the Scottish Government.. This quango, the misnamed Business Improvement District, is draining money from small business and thereby damaging the profitability of small business.
I shall also be taking legal advice as to our next step in this battle.
Despite proving that, contrary to Derek MacKay`s assertion that there were too few to have affected the Largs BID result, had 82 of us not been prevented from voting, the result would have been "NO".
This government chooses to ignore this and refuse us our democratic right to a fair and free vote. We will not accept this travesty and the fight for justice continues.

Current figure to date

To date the current figure for those businesses deprived of a vote in Largs BID is 79 !!

Saw STV news last night. Item on Falkirk and the number of businesses struggling or " going to the wall". 

No surprise, since BID took over 3 years ago. The imposition of an enforceable levy for the next 5 years no doubt has contributed to the decline. The Town Centre Manager, Alastair Mitchell ( a BID "spin doctor") was claiming to have ideas to improve the situation. But, all we have seen in previous BID areas are empty promises and spin, followed by deterioration. The only people who benefit from BID appear to be those who are part of the BID quango, whilst small businesses are forced to pay the unwanted burden of the levy, enforced by councils.

Hardly conducive to creating a thriving business community !!

When are the media going to wake up and expose the reality of BID ? So far our elected representatives prefer to ignore the results of inflicting such an undemocratic process on the small business communities of Scotland.,.

Numbers excluded from Largs BID increasing daily

I am contacting businesses on the" list" each day, and now have over 60 of us excluded from the Largs BID ballot !  Still so many to confirm.
I spoke to the office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman yesterday, and the case is only being pursued in the name of my daughter`s business. To reflect the number involved, I have been advised that I require to get a signed mandate from the others involved in the appeal process, so that I can continue to speak on their behalf as well. Only those who completed the appeal process, so, yet again those I am now finding are denied the right of appeal. Never the less, I intend to show that this ballot was, as I suspected, `rigged` to provide a "yes" result by depriving a SIGNIFICANT number of the right to a ballot paper.
The reason given by Derek MacKay MSP for his denial of the appeal was that  even if those who appealed had got a vote it would not have changed the outcome of the ballot.
Well, we can now prove that numbers already show that if North Ayrshire Council had conducted a proper ballot, the result would have been different. Also, by refusing us "the list" in November, Elma Murray the Returning Officer prevented those excluded from joining in the appeal process.
What has happened to DEMOCRACY in Scotland ?
Will we allow this ?  No chance !!  Scottish Government, take heed  ! We will continue till we win this battle.  

Finally receive list of businesses !!

The Commissioner has obtained for us the list of Largs eligible businesses. We first requested this in November from Elma Murray, North Ayrshire Council. Now, after almost 5 months and our Freedom of Information requests we can finally ascertain how many of us were deprived of a vote.
If, as I suspect, there are many more, they have been also deprived of appeal,  as were others who did not find out in time to be part of our appeal deadline of 30th November. This is unjust and will form part of our complaint now being investigated by the Scottish Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Ombudsman will investigate Largs BID

Today we received confirmation that the S.P.S.O will investigate both complaints re Largs BID   ie .
 our complaint against North Ayrshire Council and also our complaint against Scottish Government.
Obviously our so-called local paper, the Largs and Millport News will not report this, and will continue its biased coverage in favour of BID. Our fight for justice continues.

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.