A FLAWED and inaccurate report paid for with money allocated to aid the borough's poorest people is acceptable, according to Waltham Forest Council's leader and health bosses.

The £47,000 research by consultants Dr Foster Intelligence, which was financed by the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF), was found to have breached the company's own code of conduct.

But Waltham Forest's Director of Public Health Pui-Ling Li and Primary Care Trust chief executive Sally Gorham believe the discredited report is valid.

Their view is shared by council leader Clyde Loakes, who described the research as "valuable" even though official papers show it was not used to 'to fashion or operationalise interventions'.

The report, and the way the contract was tendered, is one of a number of aspects of the use of NRF in Waltham Forest which is currently under investigation.

An inquiry was launched following a complaint that the research was littered with vague assertions, inconsistencies and reached conclusions which were at odds with expert opinion.

Furthermore, 80 of the 207 postcodes listed in the report were found not to exist.

Upholding the complaint, the Dr Fosters Intelligance Ethics Committee said: "Issues of particular concern were the failure of the measures to check data sources, the evidence of inadequate editorial rigor, and the lack of adequate explanation of the methodology."

The support for the controversial research, which was commissioned by the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), was revealed in a written response to a question from Conservative group leader Matt Davis during a full council meeting last Thursday.

Cllr Davis's questions mirrored those asked by Metropolitan Police Authority member Lord Toby Harris in Parliament last month, who was told the local authority should respond.

Cllr Davis asked what assessment had been made of the success of the Dr Foster Intelligence contract.

Cllr Loakes, who chairs the LSP, responded: "The director of Public Health, supported by the PCT chief executive, has recommended that the LSP board accept the findings from the work, because the editorial errors do not discredit the findings and conclusions of the report'.

"This is based on her professional view that although there were typographical errors in the report, they do not undermine the findings of this work and the conclusions and recommendations included in the report were proportionate to the significance of the findings and the limitations of the method used."