“Police Revisit Decision on Investigation into Angela Rayner’s Electoral Law Allegations”
The police are revisiting a previous decision not to probe into allegations regarding Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, potentially violating electoral laws.
READ: Navigating Amsterdam’s Waterways: A Canal Cruise Experience
Angela Rayner
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) confirmed on Wednesday that they are “reassessing” their earlier decision not to initiate an investigation, following a complaint from Conservative MP James Daly concerning the force’s handling of the matter.
Daly, the Conservative deputy chair, initially requested an investigation after Rayner faced scrutiny for weeks regarding whether she owed capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of her former council house prior to becoming an MP.
Rayner has consistently denied any wrongdoing regarding her residency status after her 2010 marriage.
The complaint from Daly stemmed from assertions made in a book by former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, suggesting that Rayner had failed to properly declare her primary residence.
Despite her then-partner residing elsewhere at the time, Rayner maintains that a property in Vicarage Road, Stockport, which she sold in 2015, was her “main residence.”
Government guidelines stipulate that tenants can purchase their council home through the right-to-buy scheme if it serves as their “only or main home,” while HMRC regulations specify that married couples or civil partners can designate only one property as their principal residence.
However, following GMP’s previous announcement that Rayner would not be investigated, Daly raised concerns again, suggesting that relevant witnesses or documents had not been taken into account.
In response, Detective Chief Inspector Cheryl Hughes acknowledged Daly’s concerns and stated that she would review the circumstances outlined in his initial complaints, with an update on the decision regarding an investigation to follow.
A GMP spokesperson confirmed the review on Wednesday, stating that they had received a complaint regarding their decision and were in the process of reassessing it, with the complainant to be informed of the outcome in due course.
