Related Articles
Hundreds of late postal votes went uncounted in the wards won by single figure margins in May’s local elections, newly published data shows.
Former Green deputy leader Hannah Allbrooke, who lost her seat by just six votes, was sent a breakdown of how many postal votes went uncounted in each Brighton and Hove ward after the Royal Mail failed to deliver 1,423 of them them by the 10pm deadline on May 4.
Information she was sent, in response to a freedom of information request she made in June, also reveals Brighton and Hove City Council believes these were votes which should have arrived the previous day – although Royal Mail denies this.
And the first the election’s candidates – including sitting councillors – heard about it was when Brighton and Hove News published a council press release more than a month later.
Even new council leader Bella Sankey was not briefed until 12 June – after the council realised it would have to publish the information in response to another request from Ukip candidate Daniel Goodhand.
The council complained to Royal Mail, but after an investigation they said they were confident all post had been delivered propertly, and the council now says it considers the case closed.
Leader of the Greens Steve Davis said: “In the 2019 local election, there were 19 postal votes that arrived within 24 hours after the poll closed. In the last General Election there was 23,389 such cases across the entire country.
“For Brighton and Hove to have had 1,423 late postal votes is unprecedented, unexplained and unacceptable.
“People submit their votes with a full expectation that, providing they’ve followed the rules, their vote will be counted.
“If an error in the delivery process meant that legitimate votes weren’t counted, Royal Mail has a lot to answer for.
“Despite new information coming to light, there is still no explanation as to why councillors were not told sooner, within the deadline courts have to act.
“What is also concerning is that Labour seem to be remaining disinterested in getting to the bottom of these fundamental questions of democracy.”
In four wards, there were more late postal votes than the difference between the lowest placed winning candidate and the highest placed losing one.
In Regency, where the Greens’ Ricky Perrin lost by one vote to Labour’s Alison Thomson, 47 packs arrived late.
In Brunswick and Adelaide, where the Greens’ Hannah Allbrooke lost by six votes to Labour’s Andrei Czolak, 63 packs were late.
In Preston Park, where the Greens’ Leo Littman lost by 36 votes to Labour’s Liz Loughran, 98 postal votes were late.
And in Westdene and Hove Park, where Labour’s Lundy Mackenzie lost by 80 votes to Ivan Lyons, 118 postal votes were late.
The law doesn’t allow late votes to be opened, so these candidates will never know whether the late votes would have made any difference to the vote.
| Ward | Packs | Winning margin | % of turnout |
| Regency | 47 | 1 | 1.6% |
| Brunswick & Adelaide | 63 | 6 | 2.1% |
| Preston Park | 98 | 36 | 1.9% |
| Westdene & Hove Park | 118 | 100 | 2.2% |
A council spokesperson said: “In the recent council elections there were a total of 31,018 postal votes issued.
“Royal Mail delivered 1,423 of these postal ballot packs to us on the day after the recent council elections.
“The law is crystal clear that these couldn’t be counted – as they arrived after voting closed at 10pm the night before.
“There can therefore be no doubts about the validity of the election results.
“We let candidates and residents know about the late arriving ballot packs at the same time, as these could not be counted and thus made no difference to the election process.
“There are always a number of late arriving postal ballot packs. The normal explanation for this is people posting them late.
“However, the number of late arriving postal ballot packs this time was much higher than we would have expected.
“So our returning officer asked the Royal Mail to investigate this.
“The Royal Mail has investigated and assured our Returning Officer that all the postal votes were sorted, cleared and delivered appropriately.
“We therefore consider this matter to be closed.
“All wording on postal voting packs is statutory and therefore cannot be changed.
“We always advise people that postal voting packs must be returned by close of poll. Electors can return their packs to polling stations or Hove Town Hall.”
The freedom of information response includes emails between officials at the council and Royal Mail.
An email dated 18 May from the council says: “We had spoken with a Royal Mail operative on the evening of Thursday, 4 May who confirmed that a small number of postal voting packs (60) had been swept and were available for collection from Gatwick Mail Centre.
“To receive 1,423 postal voting packs the following day indicates that the Hove office were holding significant numbers of packs and had not prioritised delivering them to us as they should have.
“During the planning stage of the local elections, we requested an 8am delivery time. I was informed by the postal voting team that we could not have this time because ‘Due to the later arrival of mail from the Gatwick mail centre to the Hove delivery office, the manager of the office has advised a delivery time of 10:00′.
“However, throughout the election period the deliveries did arrive at 8am as we had originally requested. We queried this on our first day of deliveries when they arrived to the wrong location at Hove Town Hal and again on 3 May.
“We would ask that you investigate this issue and whether the original information we received during the planning stage was incorrect. If it is not incorrect, then we can deduce that we were receiving all post a day late and we should have been receiving mail at 10am.”
A response from Royal Mail on 20 June said it had investigated, and was satisfied all mail had been processed “as it came into our network”.
A council correspondent whose name has been redacted emailed on 21 June saying: I might be getting jaded and cynical in my old age … But off the top of my head I’d have thought the phrase ‘all election mail was sorted, cleared and delivered as it came into our network’ arguably doesn’t mean very much, as it doesn’t specify the timescales under which this was achieved.
“As in you could arguably use that phrase to describe ballot papers that were posted a week before the elections – let alone the day before – but still delivered a day too late.”
A Royal Mail spokesperson told Brighton and Hove News: “At Royal Mail, we are immensely proud of the role we play in the democratic process.
“Our specialist election team meticulously plans every aspect of the elections delivery programme and works closely with Brighton and Hove City Council to ensure everything runs as smoothly as possible.
“We have carried out a thorough and detailed investigation which has involved looking at the entire pipeline of election mail and interviewing people at relevant sites.
“We have concluded that all election mail was sorted, cleared and delivered as it came into our network. We will work with the city council to consider any changes that may be appropriate for future elections.”
Ms Allbrooke was also sent emails between the council’s chief executive and its communications team.
They include a discussion of the Greens’ criticism of the delay in letting the opposition parties know about the late votes on 19 June.
At the time, the Greens were angry the information was released after the 21 day deadline for challenging an election – but have since been told that late postal votes are not grounds on which this can be done.
One email, from the communications team, says: “I think the problem here – in PR terms at least – is that we didn’t let the opposition parties know about the late postal votes until after the 21 days were up.
“I think this is where the risk of conspiracy theories is most likely to take hold.
“Was there any specific reason why the opposition parties weren’t told about the late postal votes?
“I get the fact that there’s no legal requirement for the returning officer to publish the number of postal voting packs received after the close of poll.
“But 1,423 of them is a pretty eye-catching figure, and it’s clear that the Greens are keen to make as much political capital out of this as they can.”
An email responding to this said: “We didn’t inform any of the political parties (not just the opposition) as we didn’t have an answer as
to what had occurred.
“The normal explanation is late posting and had the post office confirmed this, the position would have been clear. I went public when no explanation was forthcoming.”
The communications team is then asked if this line should be added to the official response: “The leader of the council was briefed a few days before by the returning officer. The conduct of elections is strictly that of the returning officer – not the political administration.”
To which they respond: “Hi to be honest I’d rather not add that if possible …. I think it could conceivably be twisted in the direction of Labour getting preferential treatment over the other parties.”
It also shows the decision to release the information to the public was as a result of another freedom of information request by Daniel Goodhand, the Ukip candidate in Hollingdean and Fiveways, made on 9 May.
On 9 June, a virtual meeting was held to discuss the possible outcome of releasing the information to him, and it was decided to proactively publish the press release.
Mr Goodhand didn’t receive the response to his freedom of information request until 6.13pm on Monday, 19 June – days after the press release was published.
Today, he told Brighton and Hove News: “Given the current state of Royal Mail, I don’t think postal voting is a reliable anymore and I would urge everyone to vote in person to ensure your vote is counted.
“I am glad that the election outcome would not have been affected but it is still important that the number of votes each candidate receives is accurately reflected and I think a lot of voters would be understandably angry to think their vote didn’t count.”
Once published, much of the worst case scenarios the communications team had warned of did not come to pass, with one email from a relieved official saying: “The comments in the Argus and Brighton & Hove City News [sic] are not too bad with much of the blame targeted at Royal Mail.”
At one point, someone raises the possibility of correspondence between the council and Royal Mail being subject to a freedom of information request.
In the released emails, nobody anticipates correspondence between the chief executive and the communications team being asked for.
The full response can be read here.
Source link
