Mon. Jul 22nd, 2024
alert-–-police-to-reassess-claims-angela-rayner-broke-the-law-when-living-between-two-former-council-houses-after-labour-deputy-says-she-did-‘nothing-wrong’Alert – Police to reassess claims Angela Rayner broke the law when living between two former council houses after Labour deputy says she did ‘nothing wrong’

Police are to look again at claims Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner broke the law when previously living between two ex-council houses, it has emerged.

A detective chief inspector at Greater Manchester Police promised to ‘review’ and ‘reassess’ following an initial decision that there was no evidence of any offences.

Ms Rayner has faced weeks of scrutiny over her living arrangements in the 2010s following her marriage to Mark Rayner.

It came after The Mail on Sunday revealed she made a £48,500 profit on her council house after purchasing it through the right-to-buy scheme.

But tax experts have suggested she could have been liable for up to £3,000 in capital gains tax on the sale of the property in Stockport, Greater Manchester. 

Neighbours have said it was effectively a second home for six years, during which they claimed Ms Rayner was living at her then-husband’s house a mile away.

It was reported she was registered on the electoral roll at her ex-council house for five years after she wed Mr Rayner in 2010, with her husband listed at another address.

But Ms Rayner is said to have re-registered the births of her two youngest children to give her address as where her husband resided.

Those who make a false declaration on the electoral roll can face possible criminal charges. 

Police are to look again at claims Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner broke electoral law when previously living between two council houses

Police are to look again at claims Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner broke electoral law when previously living between two council houses

Bury North MP James Daly, a Conservative Party deputy chairman, said police had failed to properly investigate the claims

Bury North MP James Daly, a Conservative Party deputy chairman, said police had failed to properly investigate the claims

Ms Rayner recently delivered an emotional defence of her past living arrangements and said she had done ‘nothing wrong’.

Greater Manchester Police considered a formal complaint and found no evidence that any offence had been committed.

But Bury North MP James Daly, a Conservative Party deputy chairman, said the force had failed to properly investigate his complaint.

As reported by The Times, he complained that officers appeared not to have contacted witnesses or looked at the electoral roll, deeds and other relevant documents.

Cheryl Hughes, a detective chief inspector at Greater Manchester Police, wrote to Mr Daly on Monday to confirm she will ‘reassess our decision’.

She said: ‘I have read your letter outlining your concern over the lack of investigation into the matters you raised in your initial complaints to GMP on the 25th February regarding Angela Rayner MP.

‘Following receipt of your recent letter dated 13th March 2024, I have been requested to review the circumstances you have outlined to reassess our decision around an investigation. I will update with the outcome.’

She added that an original ‘investigative review’ had looked at the ‘relevant legislation pertaining to the allegations’ made by Mr Daly. 

Earlier this month, during a lunch with Westminster reporters, Ms Rayner hit out at having to ‘trawl through all of my personal details’ amid the scrutiny over her past living arrangements.

‘At the time of the sale of the house, I was a home carer and it was my home,’ she said of her former council house on Vicarage Road.

‘I took legal advice, as you do when you sell a property, and I had an estate agent that worked with me on that.

‘I’ve had expert tax advice, I’ve looked into it and there is no capital gains tax for me to pay and, therefore, that is my position on that.’

Ms Rayner also addressed questions about where she lived following her marriage to Mr Rayner, who owned a former council house on nearby Lowndes Lane.

She added: ‘Vicarage Road was my principal property but when my children were born, I would spend time at Lowndes Lane because my children … I had a teenager and two babies.

‘My son was born at 23 weeks. I spent eight months in intensive care with him, I wasn’t really bothered about where my clothes were on a certain night.

‘But my house was my house at Vicarage Road and I paid all my bills there, that was my home.

‘But I did spend time at Lowndes Lane at times, of course I did. And then when I sold Vicarage Road, I lived at Lowndes Lane because I didn’t have a house and I registered there when I moved in there.

‘But there was never any deceivement (sic) or any problems with, or any question about avoiding capital gains or not saying what was right on the electoral roll. That was my house.’

Ms Rayner has previously rejected Tory accusations of ‘staggering hypocrisy’ by profiting on the sale of a former council house.

Labour have proposed to ‘review’ Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme from which she benefited by buying the house at a discount.

Ms Rayner stated that Labour’s policy was to ‘review the unfair additional market discounts of up to 60 per cent’ on council home purchases following Tory changes to the policy in 2012.

She stressed this was introduced ‘long after’ she was able to exercise the right to buy herself at a 25 per cent discount under the old system.

Ms Rayner strongly pushed back at allegations she wants to ‘pull up the ladder’ to make it harder for other social housing tenants to benefit in the same way she did. 

The claims about Ms Rayner’s house sale first emerged in a forthcoming biography, Red Queen? by Lord Ashcroft, which has been serialised in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said: ‘We have received a complaint regarding our decision not to investigate an allegation and are in the process of reassessing this decision.

‘The complainant will be updated with the outcome of the reassessment in due course.’ 

error: Content is protected !!