Almost 2,000 responses to Lambeth council’s ‘consultation’ surveys on their highly controversial Oval to Stockwell Low Traffic Neighbourhood and Railton LTN schemes were NOT included in the final results – because of a large number of “suspicious” or possibly duplicate responses.
The move has already prompted comments on social media with one pro-LTN Tweet stating: “Well, well, well. “No wonder the anti’s are spitting feathers now they have been found out!” – while a local anti-LTN group says a pro-LTN group have admitted “manipulation of data”.
The questions now are: Who was trying to influence the result – or muddy the waters? And why?. Lambeth’s ruling Labour group were always going to introduce both LTNs. (As we have previously reported, residents were not given the chance of rejecting or saying a direct ‘No’ to either LTN in the ‘consultation’.*)
Survey authors Systra say they found a large number of responses were identified as being suspicious in nature, or potential duplicates.
Their report says Lambeth council, following a request by Systra, identified a further 286 responses within the Oval dataset which were considered as suspicious because the responses had been “entered in perfect alphabetical and chronological order, with identical formatting to the open-ended question asking for the first line of the
respondents home address.”
Systra’s report says the following exclusion criteria were applied:
- Responses which had either a duplicate IP (Internet Protocol) address or duplicate home address and have highly similar or exactly duplicated responses to open-ended questions;
- Responses with demographic pairings which did not make logical sense (i.e. wholly
retired 18-24 year olds; 65+ year olds training as apprentices); and - (for the Oval only) the 286 responses mentioned above.
News From Crystal Palace have (early this afternoon) asked Systra:
- For clarification – if possible – did Systra make a record / count of what the 302 responses removed from the Oval survey said?
- If so, what were the main opinions expressed?
- Did Systra make a record / count of what the 1,626 responses removed from the Railton LTN survey said?
- If so, what were the main opinions expressed?
******************************************
This is what the report – Appendix E Oval to Stockwell Consultation Report 
PDF 4 MB (Internet pages 68 / 69) says:
Treatment of duplicate responses
2.4.4 Upon the receipt of the raw online response form dataset (3,697 total responses), a large number of responses were identified as being suspicious in nature, or potential duplicates.
The steps undertaken by SYSTRA in identifying and processing these duplicate responses are outlined fully in Appendix C to this report.
THIS IS WHAT APPENDIX C OF APPENDIX E SAYS:
Appendix C – Identification & management of duplicate consultation survey responses – Technical Note
Initial identification of suspicious/potentially duplicated responses
1.1.1 As with all research data, it is good practice to check and review the data collected prior to analysis. This ensures that the data carried forward to the analysis stage is as clean as possible; allowing the analyst to have confidence in the data being used, in order to draw genuine and robust conclusions from it.
1.1.2 Upon the receipt of the raw online response form datasets (Railton: 4,554 total responses; Oval: 3,697 total responses), a large number of responses within the (sic) each dataset were identified as being suspicious in nature, or potential duplicates.
1.1.3 The criteria which were applied during this initial data checking process, to classify whether or not a response was potentially dubious, were as follows:
Identifying responses with exactly duplicated ‘Start Date’ timestamps (i.e. surveys
which were commenced at exactly the same time);
Identifying responses which provided exactly the same (identical) responses to the open-ended questions within the survey:
⚫ ‘If you don’t think the Low Traffic Neighbourhood is a positive change, what
alternative measures would you support? – Other’;
⚫ ‘Please select up to three improvements you would like to see in the [Oval
Triangle / Railton Road] area – Other’; and
⚫ ‘Are there other things we can introduce to support you (and your family) to
walk, wheel, cycle, or take public transport? – Other’.
Identifying questionable pairings of demographic responses, including, but not limited
to:
⚫ Aged 18-24, but ‘wholly retired’; and
⚫ Aged 65+, but on a government supported training programme e.g. apprentice.
Identifying cases where over 85% of responses were blank, as well as those who listed
‘Prefer Not to Say’ for more than 5 possible answers (whilst acknowledging that
responses flagged through this check alone were certainly not grounds for suspicion).
1.2 Validation of initial checks and further processing
1.2.1 Following these initial checks, SYSTRA shared the ID numbers of these suspicious / potentially duplicated responses with LB Lambeth.
1.2.2 To maintain proportionality of data sharing in line with GDPR, LB Lambeth shared the IP address, home address, and name of respondent, for these responses marked as potentially suspicious only with SYSTRA.
1.2.3 The provision of this additional personal data enabled SYSTRA to conduct a further series of checks to identify whether or not the suspicious responses identified initially were in fact ‘true duplicates’. To do this, the following additional check was undertaken:
Identifying responses which use a duplicate IP Address or Home Address
1.2.4 The above check provided an estimate that up to 1,756 responses in Railton, and 156 (sic) response in Oval were potential duplicate responses.
1.2.5 However, it is possible that multiple responses could have the same IP address and home address, and still be valid responses (e.g. multiple members of a household). Yet, in these instances, it would still be expected that responses would not be identical.
Consequently, SYSTRA and LB Lambeth agreed not (sic) exclude any responses based on having the same IP address or home address alone.
1.2.6 In addition, LB Lambeth subsequently identified a further 286 responses within the Oval dataset which were considered as suspicious on the following grounds:
These responses had been entered in perfect alphabetical and chronological order,
with identical formatting to the open-ended question asking for the first line of the
respondents home address.
Exclusions applied ahead of full analysis
1.3.1 As a result of the checks undertaken detailed in Sections 1.1 and 1.2, the following exclusion criteria was applied:
Responses which have either a duplicate IP address or duplicate home address and have highly similar or exactly duplicated responses to open-ended questions;
Responses with demographic pairings which do not make logical sense (i.e. wholly
retired 18-24 year olds; 65+ year olds training as apprentices); and
[FOR OVAL ONLY] The 286 responses that had been entered in perfect alphabetical and chronological order, with identical formatting to the open-ended question asking for the first line of the respondents home address.
1.3.2 In any instance where the same person had responded to the survey on multiple occasions, but their responses had not been duplicated, SYSTRA:
Used their most recent response for their answers to closed questions, to prevent
over-inflation of reporting to closed questions; and
Combined all of their separate open ended-responses into one response so all written
sentiments were still captured.
1.3.3 This approach represents a ‘low risk’ option, to ensure as far as possible that any excluded record was indeed a ‘true duplicate’ response. The total number of cases excluded from each dataset was as follows:
Railton: 1,626 responses excluded (2,928 responses taken forward for analysis)
Oval: 302 responses excluded (3,395 responses taken forward for analysis)
1.3.4 The full analysis of the online response form dataset detailed within the main reporting was therefore undertaken on the de-duplicated data files.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Appendix C to appendix E of Systra’s report states:
Reporting
2.4.6 As independent, impartial researchers, we believe that we have a duty to society to ensure that we report findings accurately, and with honesty. In adherence to our industry guidelines, we have not been selective in our reporting, and we provide insight into both commonly and uncommonly cited themes referenced by respondents. Furthermore, this report does not offer any subjective commentary, merely a reporting of the data gathered.
Further reading: Blocked-off roads: How hundreds of people voiced their opposition to LTNs in Lambeth’s sham ‘consultations’ – even though they were not given the option of doing so…PLUS! Lambeth Labour’s latest LTN – but where is it? This website December 22 2021
Oval to Stockwell LTN ‘Consultation’ results: The figures Lambeth Labour choose to ignore:
Blocked-off roads Railton LTN ‘Consultation’ results – The figures Lambeth Labour also chose to ignore: This website December 22 2021
@lastnotlost Wandering Londoner in an item headed: Smart council officers outsmart attempts to game consultations
NEWS FROM CRYSTAL PALACE 