Ian Doolittle's fortnightly look at stock transfer issues
Here are the promised "supplementaries" on my new approach to the ballot.

Real engagement with tenants must be on an individual basis. At present, the meaningful dialogue is with a small group of activists. At best, this produces a valuable debate; at worst it creates an illusion of consultation that misleads the council and allows opponents to denounce "cliques".

In the absence of individual tenant contact and in order to set up a once-and-for-all vote, councils have to resort to all-embracing offer documents that irritate and intimidate.

It is true that councils ask (genuinely) for comments, but the nature of the document is such as to elicit only a modest response to a short "support/ don't support" reply-paid card.

If councils were not working towards a yes/no ballot, they could ask longer and better questions which could really shape the final offer.

There will be concern that forms will not be answered in full or at all. There is certainly a challenge here; but an honest dialogue with tenants should convince them that, if they are to make a vital decision on the future of their homes, it has to be based on an hour or two's hard thinking. Any self-critical tenant will understand that.

Once the replies are in, the council can produce its comprehensive offer document – vital if tenants are to know what they will get and how to enforce that promise. The council will then invite tenants to make objections to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

n Ian Doolittle is head of public sector at law firm Trowers & Hamlins.

Email: idoolittle@trowers.com