ANGRY tenants on the threatened Earls Court estates said a report clearing Hammersmith and Fulham Council of bribery is a sham.

The council declared the ‘case closed’ after independent investigators Deloittes said there was no evidence that officials identified as VIPs or ‘early movers’ any tenant who signed support for the £8billion regeneration.

No-one was offered priority housing in exchange for their support for the scheme.

A list of 38 residents with ticks by their names under the heading ‘Seagrave Road’ was found on the authority’s databases but Deloittes concluded it comprised those residents interested in moving to the street, not that they had been given priority.

However, angry tenants say investigators did not interview anyone on the database.

Campaigner Jonathan Rosenberg said: “It is a sham. Not one tenant was contacted, so how can they be sure there hasn’t been any wrongdoing?”

Investigators admitted residents could have had a ‘perception’ there was a special list and that ‘more could have been done to dispel it’, which Mr Rosenberg says is enough for further investigation. But that has been ruled out by the council which says it is satisfied there is no further case to answer.

“If they do not ask residents, then they cannot refute these allegations,” said Mr Rosenberg, “It is utterly wrong that the investigation will not continue.”

Opposition Labour leader Stephen Cowan also slammed the inquiry, saying: “Sadly, I believe Deloittes’ approach has done little more than add a gloss to the whitewash the council appears to have been engaged in.”

Mr Rosenberg is now awaiting the police response to the dossier he handed them last September, while it is thought the Deloittes report will also form part of Scotland Yard’s investigations.

Council leader Nick Botterill said: “The independent investigators found no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone connected with the council and confirmed that these accusations are totally without foundation. No homes have been built, let alone allocated, and nobody has received preferential treatment.

“As is normal on a regeneration scheme of this size, the council talked to all affected residents about their housing needs and requirements during a two-year consultation. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone was promised anything in return for supporting the regeneration scheme.”