Multiple independent news outlets confirm that Nigel Farage did write to the Electoral Commission. The National Pulse reported on June 23, 2026 that "Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has written to the Electoral Commission urging an investigation" into Hope Not Hate Limited. Civil Society, a specialist publication covering the UK charity and civil society sector, published an article on June 25, 2026 stating: "The Reform UK leader wrote to the Electoral Commission 'demanding' a probe into private firm Hope Not Hate Limited over alleged breaches of electoral law on Tuesday." Third Sector magazine and Wigan Today also corroborate this, noting Farage's letter and the fact that Hope Not Hate Limited is registered with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner. The Electoral Commission, Farage, and Reform UK were all approached for comment by these outlets, and Hope Not Hate Limited's spokesperson acknowledged the complaint, calling it "the second complaint Mr Farage has filed about Hope Not Hate in under a month." The claim is narrowly about whether Farage wrote to the Electoral Commission — and this is clearly confirmed by multiple sources. Sources: The National Pulse — https://thenationalpulse.com/2026/06/23/farage-demands-elections-regulator-probe-far-left-hope-not-hate-for-unlawful-campaigning/ ; Civil Society — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html ; Third Sector — https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 ; Wigan Today — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934

The claim is straightforwardly confirmed by multiple independent news sources. Nigel Farage, as Reform UK leader, wrote to the Electoral Commission "demanding" a probe into Hope Not Hate Limited over alleged breaches of electoral law, specifically related to campaign spending during the Makerfield by-election. This was reported by Civil Society (CivilSociety.co.uk), Third Sector, GB News, The National Pulse, Left Foot Forward, and Wigan Today, all corroborating that Farage sent this letter on or around 23 June 2026. The claim does not assert that any breach was found — only that Farage demanded an investigation, which is exactly what happened. Hope Not Hate responded that its campaigning was "carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits," and the Electoral Commission's response was not yet reported at the time. Sources: - Civil Society – "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" – https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - The National Pulse – "Farage Demands Elections Regulator Probe Far-Left 'Hope Not Hate' for Unlawful Campaigning" – https://thenationalpulse.com/2026/06/23/farage-demands-elections-regulator-probe-far-left-hope-not-hate-for-unlawful-campaigning/ - Third Sector – "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint" – https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - GB News – "Nigel Farage reports anti-Reform leaflet to charity watchdog over 'pro-Labour message'" – https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-hope-not-hate-makerfield-labour - Wigan Today – "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" – https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934 - Left Foot Forward – "Nigel Farage in meltdown over Hope not Hate as he files a second complaint in under a month" – https://leftfootforward.org/2026/06/nigel-farage-in-meltdown-over-hope-not-hate-as-he-files-a-second-complaint-in-under-a-month/

**Context:** On June 23, 2026, Nigel Farage posted that he had written to the Electoral Commission demanding an investigation into "potential breaches of electoral law by Hope Not Hate" related to their campaigning in the Makerfield parliamentary by-election. This was his second complaint about Hope Not Hate in under a month — the first, filed with the Charity Commission in May 2026, alleged that the Hope Unlimited Charitable Trust (HUCT) funded Hope Not Hate Limited's political activities. **Key findings:** 1. **First complaint (Charity Commission) — dismissed:** The Charity Commission assessed Farage's May complaint and concluded there was "nothing to investigate." They were "provided with evidence that the charity's funds were not used in producing or circulating the materials" and took no further regulatory action. HUCT's trustees stated Farage's claims had "absolutely no basis in fact." 2. **Second complaint (Electoral Commission) — not yet adjudicated:** Farage's June 23 letter to the Electoral Commission alleges Hope Not Hate Limited exceeded the ~£700 spending limit for local non-party campaigners in the Makerfield by-election through leaflets, digital ads, and celebrity letters. As of the available reporting (Civil Society, June 25, 2026), the Electoral Commission had not concluded any investigation or made any finding. Hope Not Hate responded that its campaigning "was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits." 3. **Historical Electoral Commission finding:** The Electoral Commission's own records show that Hope Not Hate (as a registered non-party campaigner) was previously found to have committed an offence for "failure to deliver a pre-poll donation report for the 2019 UK parliamentary general election," resulting in a £1,000 variable monetary penalty. However, this historical breach is not what Farage's June 2026 tweet is about. 4. **No public evidence of the specific alleged breach:** The evidence needed to assess whether Hope Not Hate actually exceeded the local spending limit — detailed campaign spending returns, Electoral Commission investigation findings — is not yet publicly available. The Electoral Commission has not published any conclusion regarding this complaint. **Assessment:** The claim "Hope Not Hate may have breached electoral law" is a speculative assertion tied to a pending, unadjudicated complaint. The one regulator that has already ruled on related matters (the Charity Commission) found no wrongdoing. The Electoral Commission has not yet determined whether there is any case to answer. The specific evidence needed to confirm or refute whether spending limits were exceeded is not publicly available. While Hope Not Hate does have a historical electoral law breach on record (2019 reporting failure), this is not the subject of Farage's complaint, and it does not establish that the current allegations have merit. Sources: Civil Society — "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" (https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html); Third Sector — "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint" (https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712); Electoral Commission — "Monthly update on concluded investigations" (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/monthly-update-concluded-investigations-30); GOV.UK — "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust addresses concerns following intervention by regulator" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hope-not-hate-charitable-trust-addresses-concerns-following-intervention-by-regulator); The National Pulse — "Farage Demands Elections Regulator Probe Far-Left 'Hope Not Hate' for Unlawful Campaigning" (https://thenationalpulse.com/2026/06/23/farage-demands-elections-regulator-probe-far-left-hope-not-hate-for-unlawful-campaigning/)

**Cause:** Everyone following electoral rules (compliance with electoral law). **Effect:** Public trust in elections. The claim is a broad causal/normative statement that public trust in elections depends on all participants following electoral rules. The evidence supports a meaningful link between these two concepts, though it is not the sole determinant of trust. **Evidence supporting the link:** - **Peer-reviewed research** consistently finds that perceptions of electoral integrity (i.e., elections being free, fair, and rule-compliant) are associated with higher public trust in elections and political institutions. A multi-level study published in *Quality & Quantity* (Springer) covering 45 democracies found that when electoral integrity is high, political losers' distrust is significantly weaker, suggesting rule-compliance moderates trust. A study in the *American Political Science Review* (Cambridge) found that procedural agreement and confidence in election procedures are associated with higher voter confidence, using both observational and experimental data. - **The UK Electoral Commission** explicitly frames its mission around this link: "We work to promote public confidence in the electoral system, ensuring the integrity of elections." Their 2025 public attitudes survey shows that improvements in perceptions of enforcement (whether rule-breakers face consequences) track alongside improvements in trust in the Commission and confidence that elections are well-run. Their corporate plan states: "We will work to give voters confidence that elections are free, fair and well administered, and that political finance laws are upheld." **Limitations of the claim:** The claim states trust "depends on" everyone following the rules, which could imply rule-compliance is the primary or sole driver of trust. However, research identifies multiple other significant factors: whether one's preferred candidate won (the "winner's effect" is among the strongest predictors of voter confidence), the media/information environment, partisan rhetoric, and personal voting experience. The Cambridge study explicitly notes that "winning is an important determinant of voter confidence" alongside procedural factors. So rule-following is a significant contributor but not the only one. The evidence makes the link reasonable and likely: compliance with electoral rules is a credible and well-documented contributor to public trust in elections, supported by both academic research and official institutional frameworks. However, it is not decisively established as the sole or always-decisive driver, as trust also depends on other factors such as electoral outcomes, media environment, and partisan dynamics. Sources: - Electoral Commission UK, "Public attitudes 2025" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/public-attitudes/public-attitudes-2025 - Electoral Commission UK, "Corporate Plan 2025/26–2029/30" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-04/Electoral%20Commission%20Corporate%20Plan%20202526%20-%20202930.pdf - Cambridge University Press, "Procedural Polarization: How Election Rules Shape Voters' Confidence" (American Political Science Review) — https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/procedural-polarization-how-election-rules-shape-voters-confidence/326B065B9A124F105EC84D2AAB75075B - Springer, "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust" (Quality & Quantity) — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-020-01050-1

The claim that "Hope Not Hate Ltd is a registered third-party campaigner" is well-supported by multiple sources. The Electoral Commission uses the terms "non-party campaigner" and "third party" interchangeably (the legal term under PPERA is "recognised third party"). Multiple official and primary sources confirm Hope Not Hate's registered status: 1. **Hope Not Hate's own website** (fearandhope.org.uk) explicitly states: "HnH is a registered third party for the purposes of election campaigning" and that it is "registered with the Electoral Commission." 2. **The Electoral Commission itself**, in a 2019 FOI response published on WhatDoTheyKnow, stated: "Hope Not Hate is a registered non-party campaigner (NPC)." 3. **The Electoral Commission's website** lists "HOPE not hate" among non-party campaigners that reported spending of £158,624 at the 2024 UK general election. 4. **The Electoral Commission's monthly update on concluded investigations** refers to "Hope not hate (registered non-party campaigner)" in the context of a £1,000 variable monetary penalty for a reporting failure at the 2019 general election. All of these sources confirm that Hope Not Hate Ltd is registered with the Electoral Commission as a third-party (non-party) campaigner. Sources: - Fear and Hope (Hope Not Hate About Us page): https://fearandhope.org.uk/about-us/ - WhatDoTheyKnow (Electoral Commission FOI response, October 2019): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/charities_confirming_donations - Electoral Commission, First round of general election spending published: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/first-round-general-election-spending-published - Electoral Commission, Monthly update on concluded investigations: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/monthly-update-concluded-investigations-30 - Electoral Commission, Non-party campaigner Code of Practice: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigner-code-practice

The claim is that Hope Not Hate's leaflets before the Makerfield by-election were "clearly directed at encouraging voters to support Andy Burnham over Rob Kenyon." Multiple sources report the content of the leaflets, which were sent on Hope Not Hate-headed paper to addresses in the Makerfield constituency. According to Wigan Today's reporting, the leaflets: 1. Described the election as a "two-horse race" between Labour's Andy Burnham and Reform UK's Rob Kenyon — framing the choice as binary between these two candidates. 2. Praised Burnham's pitch, telling voters that his "call for a re-industrialised and decentralised Britain — one where wealth and power are no longer concentrated in Westminster and London — is a vital step forward." 3. Urged readers to "join the local fightback against Reform" via a QR code in the footer — an explicit call to action against Kenyon's party. Hope Not Hate did not deny sending the leaflets. Their public statements framed their work as exposing extremism and giving voters information about candidates, particularly highlighting Kenyon's controversial social media posts. However, the leaflets' content went beyond mere exposure of Kenyon's posts — they positively assessed Burnham's policy positions and framed the contest as a two-horse race while urging a "fightback against Reform." Hope Not Hate's post-election statement further supports the claim. After Burnham won the by-election, a Hope Not Hate spokesperson said: "Every leaflet and letter exposing Reform's candidate to the voters of Makerfield was funded by ordinary people backing Hope not Hate. Those people are the reason Robert Kenyon is not the new MP for Makerfield." This explicitly ties their leaflet campaign to defeating Kenyon — which, in a two-horse race they themselves framed, means supporting Burnham. Regulatory outcomes: The Charity Commission cleared the Hope Unlimited Charitable Trust (the charity arm), finding its funds were not used for the leaflets. Hope Not Hate Limited, which sent the leaflets, is a registered non-party campaigner with the Electoral Commission. Farage subsequently filed a separate complaint with the Electoral Commission, which is the subject of the tweet. The Charity Commission's clearance addressed the funding question, not whether the leaflets were directed at supporting Burnham over Kenyon. Assessment: The claim that the leaflets were "clearly directed at encouraging voters to support Andy Burnham over Rob Kenyon" is well-supported by the reported content. The leaflets praised Burnham's positions as "a vital step forward," framed the election as a two-horse race between him and Kenyon, and urged a "fightback against Reform." While Hope Not Hate disputes the characterization — arguing they were exposing extremism rather than endorsing a candidate — the actual content of the leaflets, as reported by multiple news outlets, does appear to be directed at encouraging support for Burnham over Kenyon. The distinction is that Hope Not Hate did not explicitly say "vote for Burnham," but the combination of praising his positions, framing the race as binary, and calling for a fightback against his opponent's party constitutes clear directional encouragement. Sources: - Wigan Today: "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934 - Third Sector: "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint" — https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - Third Sector: "Farage's claims we endorsed Burnham in by-election have 'no basis in fact' charity says" — https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/farages-claims-endorsed-burnham-by-election-no-basis-fact-charity-says/governance/article/1959634 - Civil Society: "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - GB News: "Nigel Farage reports anti-Reform leaflet to charity watchdog over 'pro-Labour message'" — https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-hope-not-hate-makerfield-labour - Civil Society: "Commission considers Farage complaint against anti-racist charity" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/commission-considers-farage-complaint-against-anti-racist-charity.html

The claim states that "Nigel Farage believes Hope Not Hate's leaflet spending accrued on behalf of the Burnham campaign." Multiple sources document Farage's publicly expressed position on this matter. According to The National Pulse's reporting on Farage's letter to the Electoral Commission (June 2026), "Farage argued that such spending should count toward Burnham's limits and required candidate authorization." Breitbart reported Farage's claim that "the group is actively leafletting in Makerfield on behalf of Labour and against Reform UK." His original letter to the Charity Commission (May 2026) stated that the leaflets "endorse Andy Burnham, Labour's candidate, and attempts to influence voters' decisions" and that the content "is clearly directed towards persuading the reader to vote for a particular candidate." Farage explicitly argued that Hope Not Hate's spending should count toward Burnham's candidate spending limits — which is precisely the claim that the spending "accrued on behalf of the Burnham campaign." This was the central thesis of his complaint to the Electoral Commission referenced in the June 23 tweet. His letters to two regulators, social media posts, and quoted statements all consistently and explicitly express this view. The Charity Commission dismissed Farage's first complaint, finding that the charity's funds were not used for the leaflets. Hope Not Hate stated their campaigning "was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits." However, these responses address the merits of the allegation, not whether Farage holds the belief — which he clearly does and has formally and publicly expressed. Sources: - The National Pulse, "Farage Demands Elections Regulator Probe Far-Left 'Hope Not Hate' for Unlawful Campaigning," https://thenationalpulse.com/2026/06/23/farage-demands-elections-regulator-probe-far-left-hope-not-hate-for-unlawful-campaigning/ - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared," https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Civil Society, "Commission considers Farage complaint against anti-racist charity," https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/commission-considers-farage-complaint-against-anti-racist-charity.html - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint," https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - Breitbart, "Farage Accuses Far-Left HOPE Not Hate of Breaching Charity Rules," https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/05/28/farage-accuses-far-left-hope-not-hate-of-breaching-charity-rules-over-alleged-election-campaigning/

The Electoral Commission's guidance page "What is a non-party campaigner?" explicitly states that at UK Parliamentary general elections (UKPGEs), local campaigns are covered by the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA), under which local campaigns are subject to a spending limit of £700 on campaigning for or against one or more candidates in a constituency. This confirms the core assertion of the claim. Important qualifications: 1. The £700 limit specifically applies to UK Parliamentary general elections. Different election types have different spending limits (e.g., local government elections in Scotland use a formula of £50 + 0.5 pence per elector). 2. The limit was raised from £500 to £700, consistent with amendments under the Elections Act 2022. 3. The Electoral Commission itself does not regulate local campaigning — complaints about breaches should go to the police. The claim accurately reflects the Electoral Commission's guidance for UK Parliamentary general elections, which is the relevant context. The claim does not misrepresent the guidance. Sources: - Electoral Commission, "What is a non-party campaigner?" https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/what-a-non-party-campaigner - Electoral Commission, "Who is covered by the law?" https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/overview-non-party-campaigner-requirements/who-covered-law - Electoral Commission, "Spending more than £700 on regulated campaign activities" https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/overview-non-party-campaigner-requirements/spending-more-ps700-regulated-campaign-activities - Electoral Commission, "Briefing on third-party campaigning in the UK" (PDF) https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Briefing-on-third-party-campaigning-in-the-UK.pdf

The claim is a near-verbatim paraphrase of official Electoral Commission guidance. The Electoral Commission's guidance pages for local elections, mayoral elections, and UK parliamentary general elections all state: "A local non-party campaigner cannot spend more than this permitted sum without the agent's written authorisation to incur the additional spending, which will count towards the candidate's spending limit." The relevant rule derives from section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The only minor discrepancy is that the claim says "the candidate's written authorisation," whereas the Electoral Commission guidance for most election types specifies the agent's written authorisation (i.e., the candidate's election agent). However, for some election types (e.g., Senedd elections from May 2026), the guidance says authorisation can come from "a candidate or agent." In practice, the agent acts on behalf of the candidate, and the core legal principle — that a local non-party campaigner is limited to a permitted sum and cannot exceed it without written authorisation that brings the additional spending under the candidate's spending limit — is accurately stated. The claim correctly captures the substance of the rule: there is a permitted spending sum for local non-party campaigners, and exceeding it requires written authorisation (from the candidate or their agent), with the excess counting toward the candidate's spending limit. Sources: Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (local authority and mayoral elections in England) — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-authority-mayoral-elections-england/candidate-spending/local-campaigning; Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (UK parliamentary general elections) — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-general-elections-great-britain/candidate-spending/local-campaigning; Electoral Commission, "Non-party campaigners: Local campaigning at Senedd elections (elections from 7 May 2026 onwards)" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/non-party-campaigners-local-campaigning-senedd-elections-elections-7-may-2026-onwards

The claim "Additional spending by a local non-party campaigner counts towards the candidate's spending limit" is an accurate statement of UK electoral law under Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA). The Electoral Commission's guidance on local campaigning explicitly states: > "A local non-party campaigner cannot spend more than this permitted sum without the agent's written authorisation to incur the additional spending, which will count towards the candidate's spending limit." And further: > "Money that is incurred by campaigners in local campaigns that has been authorised by the agent is candidate spending and counts towards the spending limit." Here's how the law works: 1. **Permitted sum**: A local non-party campaigner can spend up to a "permitted sum" (at parliamentary elections, £700; at local elections, £50 + 0.5p per elector) on campaigning for or against a candidate without needing any authorisation. 2. **Additional spending**: If the campaigner wishes to spend **more** than the permitted sum, they must obtain **written authorisation from the candidate's election agent**. This additional (authorised) spending then counts towards the candidate's own spending limit. 3. **Reporting**: The authorised additional spending must be reported both by the non-party campaigner (to the Returning Officer within 21 days of the result) and included in the candidate's spending return. 4. **Without authorisation**: Spending over the permitted sum without the agent's written authorisation is an offence under section 75 RPA. In the context of Farage's tweet, he was complaining to the Electoral Commission about Hope Not Hate Limited's campaigning in the Makerfield by-election, alleging they may have breached electoral spending limits. The claim about how the law treats additional spending by local non-party campaigners is factually accurate as a description of UK electoral law. The one important qualification is that the additional spending only counts towards the candidate's limit **if it is authorised by the candidate's agent**. The claim as stated doesn't make this qualification explicit, but it is implied — the mechanism by which additional spending counts towards the candidate's limit is precisely through the agent's authorisation. Without authorisation, the spending is simply unlawful. Sources: - Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (guidance for candidates and agents at local government elections in England): https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-government-elections-england/candidate-spending/local-campaigning - Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (guidance for local authority mayoral elections in England): https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-authority-mayoral-elections-england/candidate-spending/local-campaigning - Electoral Commission, "What is a non-party campaigner?": https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/what-a-non-party-campaigner - Section 75, Representation of the People Act 1983: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/75 - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" (25 June 2026): https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Left Foot Forward, "Nigel Farage in meltdown over Hope not Hate as he files a second complaint in under a month" (June 2026): https://leftfootforward.org/2026/06/nigel-farage-in-meltdown-over-hope-not-hate-as-he-files-a-second-complaint-in-under-a-month/

The claim "Hope Not Hate's expenses could not have remained below £700" concerns whether Hope Not Hate Limited's regulated campaign spending during the Makerfield by-election necessarily exceeded the £700 threshold that applies to non-party campaigners under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). The £700 figure is real: under PPERA section 89A, a third party that is not an eligible/notified non-party campaigner may not incur more than £700 in controlled expenditure during a regulated period. The Electoral Commission's own guidance confirms this threshold exists. Nigel Farage alleged that Hope Not Hate "racked up thousands of pounds in spend in the month leading up to the by-election on Facebook alone" (Left Foot Forward, 2026-06), arguing this made it impossible for the organisation to have stayed below the £700 limit. He wrote to the Electoral Commission demanding an investigation. However, the publicly available evidence does not establish the actual spending amount. Hope Not Hate responded that its "campaigning in Makerfield was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits" (Civil Society, TFN, Third Sector, 2026-06). The Charity Commission — a separate regulator dealing with a related but different complaint about the charitable arm — concluded that the charity's funds were not used to produce or circulate the leaflets, but this does not tell us how much the non-charity (Hope Not Hate Limited) itself spent on regulated campaign activity. No Electoral Commission finding, audited spending return, or Facebook Ad Library data showing the actual regulated spending figure has been made public in the sources available. The claim rests on an allegation by one political actor and is disputed by the organisation itself, but the underlying financial data needed to verify whether spending did or did not exceed £700 is not publicly available. This is a well-defined, fact-shaped assertion about actual expenditure, but the evidence required to confirm or refute it is not in the public domain. Sources: - Electoral Commission, "Spending more than £700 on regulated campaign activities," https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/overview-non-party-campaigner-requirements/spending-more-ps700-regulated-campaign-activities - Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (s.89A), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/chapter/II/crossheading/which-third-parties-may-incur-expenditure/2025-01-01 - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared," https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Left Foot Forward, "Nigel Farage in meltdown over Hope not Hate as he files a second complaint in under a month," https://leftfootforward.org/2026/06/nigel-farage-in-meltdown-over-hope-not-hate-as-he-files-a-second-complaint-in-under-a-month/ - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint," https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - TFN, "Farage escalates Hope Not Hate row," https://tfn.scot/news/farage-escalates-hope-not-hate-row

The claim — "Hope Not Hate's spending therefore needed to be authorised by Andy Burnham's campaign" — is a legal interpretation advanced in Nigel Farage's complaint to the Electoral Commission. It asserts that UK electoral law required Hope Not Hate's spending on the Makerfield by-election to be authorised by Andy Burnham's candidate campaign (i.e., his election agent). Two distinct legal frameworks potentially apply to third-party spending at a UK parliamentary by-election: 1. **Local non-party campaigning (s.75, Representation of the People Act 1983):** Electoral Commission guidance states that "local non-party campaigners" can spend up to £700 on campaigning for or against a candidate in a constituency without authorisation. Spending above that "permitted sum" requires written authorisation from the candidate's election agent, and the authorised amount counts towards the candidate's spending limit. On this framework, if Hope Not Hate's leafleting in Makerfield cost more than £700 and was "for" Burnham as a candidate, the claim would have support. 2. **Controlled/targeted expenditure (PPERA 2000):** Hope Not Hate Limited is registered with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner. Under PPERA, "targeted spending" — spending reasonably regarded as intended to promote one particular registered party or its candidates — is subject to limits. Spending above the targeted spending limits must be authorised by the registered political party (Labour's treasurer/deputy treasurer), not the candidate's campaign. Spending up to those limits can be incurred without authorisation. Which framework governs Hope Not Hate's specific spending — and whether the relevant thresholds were crossed — has not been adjudicated by the Electoral Commission. Hope Not Hate has stated that its campaigning "was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits," and the Charity Commission separately found that the charitable trust's funds were not used for the leaflets (they were funded by supporter donations to the non-charitable entity). No public evidence establishes the exact amounts spent, whether the £700 local-campaigning threshold or the PPERA targeted-spending limits were exceeded, or how the spending should legally be characterised. Because the claim is a definitive legal conclusion about a specific, unadjudicated situation, and the publicly available evidence does not establish which legal regime applies or whether the thresholds requiring candidate-campaign authorisation were met, it cannot be verified as true or false on the present record. **Sources:** - Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (Guidance for Candidates and Agents, UK Parliamentary by-elections) — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-elections-great-britain - Electoral Commission, "Non-party campaigners: UK Parliamentary general elections" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections - Electoral Commission, "Non-party campaigner Code of Practice" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigner-code-practice - Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part VI (legislation.gov.uk) — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/part/VI/2025-04-14 - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint" — https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - Wigan Today, "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934

The claim is that "Hope Not Hate described a rapid-response plan involving local organising, targeted leafleting and digital adverts to challenge Reform from the start." This is directly corroborated by a LinkedIn post from the official HOPE not hate account, dated 15 May 2026, regarding the upcoming Makerfield by-election. The post states verbatim: "We're preparing local organising, targeted leafleting, digital adverts and rapid rebuttal to make sure Reform are challenged from the start." Every element of the claim maps onto this public statement: "local organising" — verbatim match; "targeted leafleting" — verbatim match; "digital adverts" — verbatim match; "to challenge Reform from the start" — closely matches "to make sure Reform are challenged from the start"; and "rapid-response plan" — the post describes acting urgently ("we need to move fast in Makerfield") and includes "rapid rebuttal" as part of the described activities, while the Forward Action blog also characterizes HOPE not hate's approach as a "rapid-response campaign." The claim is a faithful and accurate paraphrase of what HOPE not hate publicly described. No material qualification is missing. Sources: - HOPE not hate LinkedIn post (15 May 2026): https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hopenothate_a-parliamentary-by-election-is-coming-in-activity-7460969874341707776-P3QH - Forward Action UK blog, "Rapid Response Campaigning — how to generate power in 2026": https://forwardaction.uk/blog/mobilising-hope-what-charities-can-learn-from-hope-not-hates-rapid-response-campaign

The claim asserts a specific, verifiable fact: that Hope Not Hate's Facebook page spent "thousands of pounds" on advertising during the month before the by-election. This is a factual assertion about advertising expenditure that could, in principle, be checked via Meta's Ad Library, which publicly reports spending ranges for ads about social issues, elections, or politics. However, the evidence gathered does not independently confirm the specific spending figure. The only source referencing the "thousands of pounds" figure is a report in Left Foot Forward, which attributes the claim to Farage's complaint: "He claims Hope not Hate racked up thousands of pounds in spend in the month leading up to the by-election on Facebook alone." No source found independently verified this figure, and Hope Not Hate's public response — that its campaigning "was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits" — does not directly confirm or deny the specific amount spent on Facebook ads. Because the claim concerns a specific, quantifiable advertising spend that would require direct consultation of Meta's Ad Library or Hope Not Hate's own spending records (which are not publicly available in the sources found), and because the available reporting only attributes the figure to Farage's complaint rather than independently confirming it, the public evidence is insufficient to verify or refute the core assertion. Sources: - Left Foot Forward: "Nigel Farage in meltdown over Hope not Hate as he files a second complaint in under a month" — https://leftfootforward.org/2026/06/nigel-farage-in-meltdown-over-hope-not-hate-as-he-files-a-second-complaint-in-under-a-month/ - Civil Society: "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - TFN: "Farage escalates Hope Not Hate row" — https://tfn.scot/news/farage-escalates-hope-not-hate-row - Meta Ad Library — https://www.facebook.com/ads/library

The claim that "Hope Not Hate's adverts warned that Reform was trying to divide Greater Manchester" is a fair characterisation of Hope Not Hate's campaign messaging during two Greater Manchester parliamentary by-elections (Gorton and Denton, 26 February 2026; Makerfield, 18 June 2026). Multiple sources confirm Hope Not Hate Limited, registered as a non-party campaigner with the Electoral Commission, ran campaigns against Reform UK in both by-elections, distributing leaflets and running digital adverts. Hope Not Hate's own materials framed the elections as "hope vs hate," accused Reform's candidates of being divisive, and described their mission as challenging "those who promote racism, intolerance and division in our politics." While the exact phrase "Reform was trying to divide Greater Manchester" appears to be a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, the substantive content—opposing Reform as a divisive force in Greater Manchester communities—is well-documented across multiple sources. Nigel Farage's subsequent complaint to the Electoral Commission on 23 June 2026 focused on spending limits and funding structures, not on the advert content itself. Sources: - The National Pulse: "Farage Demands Elections Regulator Probe Far-Left 'Hope Not Hate' for Unlawful Campaigning" — https://thenationalpulse.com/2026/06/23/farage-demands-elections-regulator-probe-far-left-hope-not-hate-for-unlawful-campaigning/ - Wigan Today: "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934 - Civil Society: "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - The Canary: "Farage reports Hope not hate to Charity Commission" — https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2026/05/28/farage-reports-hope-not-hate-to-the-charity-trust/ - Manchester Evening News: "Rachel Reeves says Reform is 'wrong thing' for Greater Manchester" — https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rachel-reeves-says-reform-wrong-33457088 - Hope Not Hate campaign page: "Stop Reform UK in Gorton and Denton" — https://secure.hopenothate.org.uk/page/185544/data/1?locale=en-GB

The claim is that "Hope Not Hate's adverts urged people to stop Reform UK." Based on multiple sources, including Hope Not Hate's own public communications, this claim is well-supported by evidence. **Direct evidence from Hope Not Hate's own communications:** 1. **Hope Not Hate's official LinkedIn post** (archived/captured during the Makerfield by-election campaign) explicitly states: *"help us move quickly to organise the anti-reform vote in Makerfield, and **stop Reform UK from gaining ground**"* and *"But we know we can **stop them**."* The same post describes their campaign as involving "digital adverts" among other activities. 2. **Leaflets delivered to Makerfield homes** on Hope Not Hate-headed paper included a footer urging readers *"to join the local fightback against Reform, please scan the QR code."* This was reported by Wigan Today, GB News, and Civil Society, and was the subject of Farage's complaints to both the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission. Hope Not Hate did not deny producing these leaflets. 3. **Hope Not Hate's campaigns director Georgie Laming** described their "rapid response plan" involving "digital adverts" to *"make sure Reform are challenged from the start"* and described Reform UK as a threat that needed to be stopped. 4. **Hope Not Hate's website** hosts a "Reform Watch" page with language about needing to "fight back" against Reform UK, stating *"If we don't act now, they could reshape British politics as we know it."* The claim does not require any inference or interpretation beyond what Hope Not Hate's own materials state. Their public communications explicitly use the phrase "stop Reform UK" and describe campaign activities — including leaflets and digital adverts — directed at opposing Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election and beyond. The only nuance is that the claim uses the word "adverts" broadly, while the evidence encompasses leaflets, digital adverts, and campaign appeals. However, Hope Not Hate themselves listed "digital adverts" as part of their toolkit, and the leaflets functioned as advertising materials. The core assertion — that Hope Not Hate's campaign materials urged people to stop Reform UK — is accurate. Sources: - Hope Not Hate official LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hopenothate_a-parliamentary-by-election-is-coming-in-activity-7460969874341707776-P3QH - Wigan Today — "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets": https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934 - Civil Society — "Commission considers Farage complaint against anti-racist charity": https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/commission-considers-farage-complaint-against-anti-racist-charity.html - Civil Society — "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared": https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - GB News — "Nigel Farage reports anti-Reform leaflet to charity watchdog over 'pro-Labour message'": https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-hope-not-hate-makerfield-labour - Hope Not Hate — "Reform Watch" page: https://hopenothate.org.uk/reform-watch/

Multiple news sources confirm that Hope Not Hate sent leaflets to addresses in the Makerfield constituency during the June 2026 by-election campaign. Key evidence includes: 1. Wigan Today reported that Farage described "numerous reports of Hope Not Hate sending leaflets to addresses" in the Makerfield constituency, and noted that "Photographs of these leaflets, on Hope Not Hate-headed paper, have circulated on social media" — using the plural form, indicating multiple distinct leaflets were photographed and shared. 2. Hope Not Hate did not deny sending the leaflets. Their statement defended their campaigning and funding structure but did not dispute that leaflets had been distributed in Makerfield. A Hope Not Hate spokesperson told Third Sector: "Every leaflet and letter exposing Reform's candidate to the voters of Makerfield was funded by ordinary people backing Hope not Hate" — using plural "leaflet" and also referencing "letter," indicating multiple distinct publications were distributed. 3. Civil Society reported that a Hope Not Hate Limited spokesperson confirmed: "Hope Not Hate's campaigning in Makerfield was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits" — an implicit confirmation that leafleting occurred. 4. Farage's letter (published via Guido Fawkes) uses "the leaflet" (singular) when describing specific content, but also "numerous reports of Hope Not Hate sending leaflets" (plural) overall. The consistent use of plural "leaflets" across multiple sources, the reference to photographs of "these leaflets," and Hope Not Hate's own spokesperson referencing "every leaflet and letter" collectively support the claim that at least two distinct leaflet publications were distributed in Makerfield by Hope Not Hate. Sources: Wigan Today (https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934); Third Sector (https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712); Civil Society (https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html); Guido Fawkes / Order-Order (https://order-order.com/2026/05/27/farage-reports-hope-not-hate-to-charity-watchdog-over-pro-labour-leaflets/)

The claim that one of the leaflets distributed in the Makerfield by-election was a personal letter written by Carol Vorderman is well-supported by multiple news sources. The Manchester Evening News reported in detail that Carol Vorderman wrote a personal letter to female voters in the Makerfield constituency, which was to be sent to more than 6,000 female voters. The article explicitly states the letter was "distributed by hand in conjunction with campaign group Hope Not Hate." The letter, written in a personal "woman to woman" style, addressed Reform UK candidate Rob Kenyon's resurfaced social media posts about women, criticized Reform's pledge to scrap the Equality Act, and urged voters to consider whether Kenyon should represent them. The article even published the letter in full. This is consistent with the broader context of Farage's complaint: he accused Hope Not Hate of distributing leaflets in the Makerfield by-election that were politically motivated. The Vorderman letter was one of the materials distributed as part of Hope Not Hate's campaigning in that by-election, alongside other leaflets endorsing Labour candidate Andy Burnham and opposing Reform UK. The claim is factually accurate: Carol Vorderman did write a personal letter that was distributed as a leaflet to voters, in conjunction with Hope Not Hate, during the Makerfield by-election campaign. Sources: Manchester Evening News — "Carol Vorderman brands Reform candidate 'little coward' as she sends letter to women of Makerfield" (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/carol-vorderman-brands-reform-candidate-34028129); Civil Society — "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" (https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html); Wigan Today — "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" (https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934)

Multiple reputable sources confirm the letter's distribution in the Makerfield constituency ahead of the June 2026 by-election. The Manchester Evening News, which broke the story exclusively, reported the letter was "due to be sent to more than 6,000 female voters across the constituency" and distributed by hand "in conjunction with campaign group Hope Not Hate." Hope Not Hate's own Bluesky account posted: "Carol Vorderman brands Reform candidate 'little coward' in a letter delivered by HOPE not hate, to 6,000 women in Makerfield." Crucially, Carol Vorderman herself later confirmed the distribution on LBC, stating: "We sent out over 13,000 letters. It was a letter from me personally directed to the women of Makerfield, woman to woman." This was reported by the Mirror, the Bristol Post, and Yahoo News UK. So not only was the threshold of "at least 6,000" met — it was exceeded, with more than double that figure reportedly delivered. The claim is accurate and, if anything, understates the scale of the distribution. Sources: - Manchester Evening News — "Carol Vorderman brands Reform candidate 'little coward' as she sends letter to thousands of women in Makerfield" (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/carol-vorderman-brands-reform-candidate-34028129) - Hope Not Hate Bluesky post, May 29, 2026 (https://bsky.app/profile/hopenothate.org.uk/post/3mmz3jizbpc2u) - Mirror — "Carol Vorderman blasts Reform's Robert Kenyon and says women reacted..." (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/carol-vorderman-reform-robert-kenyon-37322957) - Bristol Post / Bristol Live — "Carol Vorderman's personal letter to women voters might have swung Makerfield by-election" (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/carol-vordermans-personal-letter-women-11023407) - Yahoo News UK (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/carol-vordermans-personal-letter-women-171334889.html)

The Electoral Commission's published donations data contradicts the claim that Hope Not Hate had not registered any donations since 2019. The Commission's donations database includes entries for "HOPE not hate Ltd" reported in connection with the 2024 UK general election cycle, including a donation record (reference TV0593915) of £2,500 reported on 3 October 2024. More broadly, the Electoral Commission's reporting on the 2024 general election confirms that Hope Not Hate was a registered non-party campaigner that submitted a spending return and reported donations as part of that return. The Commission's 2024 election campaign spending report lists "HOPE not Hate" as spending £158,624, and non-party campaigners are required to report certain donations alongside spending. These records post-date 2019, so the core assertion that no donations were registered since 2019 is not supported by the available public evidence. Sources: - Electoral Commission — Donations database (PEF Online): https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/api/pdf/Donations?date=&et=tp&from=&includeOutsideSection75=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&isIrishSourceYes=true&order=desc&postPoll=true&prePoll=false&query=&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&rows=%7BpageSize%7D&rptPd=&sort=AcceptedDate&start=%7Bstart%7D&to= - Electoral Commission — First round of general election spending published: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/first-round-general-election-spending-published - Electoral Commission — Report on campaign spending at the 2024 UK Parliamentary general election: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/report-campaign-spending-2024-uk-parliamentary-general-election - UK Parliament Commons Library — Non-party spending in the 2024 general election: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/non-party-spending-in-the-2024-general-election/ - Civil Society — Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html

The claim is that Hope Not Hate Limited's 2024 annual report stated it received grants totalling £787,858 from the Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust. Key evidence: 1. Charity Commission data for the financial year ending 31 December 2024 shows that HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (the registered name for what was formerly called "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust" and has since been renamed back) reported "Expenditure – Grants institution" of £787.86k for 2024. This is consistent with a figure of £787,858 (the Charity Commission rounds to the nearest £10 for display purposes in the summary table). 2. Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) reporting from May 2026 explicitly states: "In their 2024 annual report they note a grant of £787,858, against a total charitable expenditure from the charity of £893,701 for the period." This matches the Charity Commission's figures (£893.70k total charitable activities expenditure for 2024). 3. Hope Not Hate's own website confirms the relationship: "HOPE not hate receives grants from HOPE not hate Charitable Trust, which are used to undertake work falling within HOPE not hate Charitable Trust's charitable objects." 4. The Trust's 2023 accounts (available via the Charity Commission) explicitly show a grant of £650,000 was made from the Trust to Hope Not Hate Limited, establishing this as the pattern of funding between the two entities. The figure of £787,858 is corroborated by both the Charity Commission's regulatory data and independent reporting citing the annual report directly. The naming is accurate — the entity was known as "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust" during 2024 (it was renamed to "HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust" and then back to "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust" in October 2025). Sources: - Charity Commission – HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (charity 1013880) financial data: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1013880/full-print - Hope Not Hate website – HNH Charitable Trust page: https://hopenothate.org.uk/hnh-charitable-trust/ - Guido Fawkes / order-order.com – "Farage Reports Hope Not Hate to Charity Watchdog Over 'Pro-Labour Leaflets'" (May 27, 2026): https://order-order.com/2026/05/27/farage-reports-hope-not-hate-to-charity-watchdog-over-pro-labour-leaflets/ - Companies House – HOPE NOT HATE LIMITED (company 08188502) filing history: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08188502/filing-history

According to analysis of the 2024 accounts of Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust (now renamed HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust), £48,102 was owed by Hope Not Hate Limited to the charity at the end of 2024. This is consistent with the 2023 accounts, which showed £43,748 owed by Hope Not Hate Limited to the charity at year-end 2023, as directly confirmed in the Charity Commission filing. The direction of the debt matches the claim: the limited company (Hope Not Hate Limited) owed money to the charitable trust. Sources: - Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust 2023 accounts (Charity Commission register, charity 1013880): https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1013880/full-print - Reiners.org.uk analysis of Hope Not Hate 2024 accounts: https://reiners.org.uk/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-hope-not-hate-but-were-afraid-to-ask/ - Companies House filing history for HOPE NOT HATE LIMITED (company 08188502): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08188502/filing-history

Schedule 11, Paragraph 2(1)(d) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) explicitly defines "donation" in relation to a recognised third party to include "any money lent to the recognised third party otherwise than on commercial terms." This is a verbatim match for the claim. The claim is a straightforward statement of law, and the legislation on legislation.gov.uk confirms it precisely. There are no material qualifications or caveats that would make this inaccurate — the provision exists exactly as described. The Electoral Commission's own guidance pages also corroborate the broader framework under PPERA that non-commercial loans are treated as donations (though their general guidance pages focus more on political parties than on third-party campaigners specifically; the legislation itself, however, covers recognised third parties in Schedule 11). Sources: - Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Schedule 11, Paragraph 2, legislation.gov.uk — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/schedule/11/enacted - Electoral Commission, "Which donations are covered by the rules?" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain/which-donations-are-covered-rules - Electoral Commission, "Political party donations and loans in Great Britain" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain

The two organizations were historically highly integrated — sharing a name, personnel (including Nick Lowles as secretary of the trust), and a grant-making relationship that drew years of regulatory concern. However, by the June 2026 date of the tweet, the Charity Commission had closed its case after the charity changed its name to HOPE Unlimited, recruited independent trustees, replaced shared personnel, and committed to independent staffing. The Commission explicitly found these steps made the two organizations "more distinct." A grant-making relationship still exists and the Commission continues to monitor it, so the claim is not entirely without basis — but the present-tense assertion that they "are highly integrated" overstates the position as of the post date. Sources: - UK Government / Charity Commission: "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust addresses concerns following intervention by regulator" — https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hope-not-hate-charitable-trust-addresses-concerns-following-intervention-by-regulator - Companies House: HOPE UNLIMITED CHARITABLE TRUST (company 02738367) overview and filing history — https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02738367 and https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02738367/filing-history - Charity Commission register: HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (charity 1013880) — https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1013880 - Hope Not Hate website: "HOPE not hate Charitable Trust" page — https://hopenothate.org.uk/hnh-charitable-trust/ - Civil Society: "Regulator closes case after Hope Not Hate charity changes name" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/regulator-closes-case-after-hope-not-hate-charity-changes-name.html

The claim that "Hope Not Hate received payments from Hope Unlimited" is factually accurate and supported by multiple independent sources. **Key evidence:** 1. **Charity Commission register**: The official Charity Commission register for HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (Charity Number 1013880) shows that in the financial year ending 31 December 2024, the charity recorded £787,860 in "Expenditure – Grants institution," representing grants made to other organisations. The charity's primary purpose is described as "grant making." 2. **Multiple news outlets confirm the recipient**: Several outlets, including Civil Society, Third Sector, Wigan Today, and Guido Fawkes, report that Hope Not Hate Limited received grants from HUCT totalling approximately £788,000 in 2024. Civil Society states: "Hope Not Hate Limited's accounts show that it received grants totalling £788,000 from HUCT 'to carry out their assignments.'" Wigan Today confirms: "Hope Unlimited Charitable Trust, formerly known as Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust, gave Hope Not Hate Limited a grant of £787,858 during 2024." 3. **Government statement**: The Charity Commission's own gov.uk statement discusses the relationship between HOPE Unlimited and Hope Not Hate Limited, noting that the regulator expects trustees to "manage the relationship between HOPE Unlimited and Hope Not Hate Limited" and that grants must be applied "fairly and consistently." While Hope Not Hate's spokesperson has disputed the characterisation that it is funded "almost entirely" by HUCT grants — stating it is "supporter-funded" — the basic fact that payments (grants) flowed from Hope Unlimited to Hope Not Hate Limited is not in dispute. Sources: - Charity Commission register for HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1013880/full-print - UK Government / Charity Commission statement: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hope-not-hate-charitable-trust-addresses-concerns-following-intervention-by-regulator - Civil Society – "Commission considers Farage complaint against anti-racist charity": https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/commission-considers-farage-complaint-against-anti-racist-charity.html - Civil Society – "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared": https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Third Sector – "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint": https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - Wigan Today – "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets": https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934

Electoral Commission guidance on non-party campaigners is clear that donation reporting requirements apply only to donations given specifically "for the purpose of meeting spending on regulated campaign activity" — i.e., campaign spending during the regulated period before an election. Money received for an organisation's general or charitable purposes is not covered by these rules. The reporting threshold for donations/spending is £20,000 in England, and only donations over £7,500 from a single source need to be itemised; smaller donations are reported only as an aggregate. The available evidence indicates that the grants from HUCT to Hope Not Hate Limited (totalling roughly £788,000 in 2024) were explicitly ringfenced for charitable and non-political work. Both organisations stated the grants were not used to fund electoral campaigning. The Charity Commission assessed this matter and concluded there was no basis for regulatory action, confirming that the charity's funds were not used to produce or circulate the political leaflets distributed during the Makerfield by-election. Farage's earlier, related complaint to the Charity Commission was dismissed on these grounds. Because the grants were not given for regulated campaign activity, they would not fall within the Electoral Commission's donation-registration requirements. The best available evidence therefore contradicts the assertion that "those payments should have been registered under current guidance." No regulator has found a breach, and the guidance itself does not require registration of general/charitable grants unrelated to regulated campaign spending. Sources: - Electoral Commission, "Overview of the non-party campaigner requirements" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/overview-non-party-campaigner-requirements - Electoral Commission, "Non-party campaigner Code of Practice" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigner-code-practice - Electoral Commission, "Understanding if your campaign activity is regulated" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/resources/democratic-engagement-resources/understanding-if-your-campaign-activity-regulated - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint" — https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - GOV.UK / Charity Commission, "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust addresses concerns following intervention by regulator" — https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hope-not-hate-charitable-trust-addresses-concerns-following-intervention-by-regulator - Wigan Today, "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934

The claim "Those payments appear not to have been registered" refers to Nigel Farage's assertion that Hope Not Hate Limited had not registered donations (specifically grants from the Hope Unlimited Charitable Trust, totalling around £788,000 in 2024) with the Electoral Commission since 2019. Several important points emerge from the available evidence: 1. Hope Not Hate Limited is registered with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner (third-party campaigner), confirmed by multiple sources including the organisation's own statements and reporting. 2. The grants are documented in Companies House accounts and Charity Commission filings — the £788,000 grant from HUCT to Hope Not Hate Limited in 2024 is a matter of public record through charitable and company filings. 3. Whether these grants must be registered with the Electoral Commission as donations depends on their purpose. A 2019 Electoral Commission FOI response explained that non-party campaigners must report donations received "in line with their campaign spending" during regulated periods, and only individual donations over £7,500 need detailed reporting. In the 2017 general election, Hope Not Hate reported an aggregate figure of donations between £500 and £7,500 but no individual donations above £7,500. 4. The characterization of the grants is disputed. HUCT and Hope Not Hate Limited both maintain that the grants from the charitable trust are "ringfenced for charitable and non-political work" and "not used to fund electoral campaigning." If the grants are genuinely for non-campaign purposes, they would not need to be registered as campaign donations with the Electoral Commission. Farage disputes this characterization. 5. The Electoral Commission had not ruled on the complaint as of the available sources (dated late June 2026). The Charity Commission had already dismissed Farage's first complaint against HUCT, finding that "the charity's funds were not used in producing or circulating the materials" in the Makerfield by-election. The narrow factual claim — that the HUCT grants do not appear on the Electoral Commission's register of donations for Hope Not Hate Limited — may be accurate as an observation. However, whether this constitutes a breach depends on unresolved legal questions about whether those grants count as campaign-related donations requiring registration. The Electoral Commission has not adjudicated this, and the current contents of the Electoral Commission's donation register cannot be directly verified from the available sources. The claim is fact-shaped but rests on an unresolved regulatory question and a disputed characterization of the payments' purpose. Sources: - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared," https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Civil Society, "Commission considers Farage complaint against anti-racist charity," https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/commission-considers-farage-complaint-against-anti-racist-charity.html - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint," https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - WhatDoTheyKnow, Electoral Commission FOI response on Hope Not Hate donation reporting (2019), https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/charities_confirming_donations - GOV.UK / Companies House, "HOPE NOT HATE LIMITED overview," https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08188502 - GOV.UK / Charity Commission, "Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust addresses concerns following intervention by regulator," https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hope-not-hate-charitable-trust-addresses-concerns-following-intervention-by-regulator

The claim asserts two specific things: (1) that Lee Anderson MP wrote a letter dated 11 June concerning potential Purdah breaches during the Makerfield by-election, and (2) that as of the tweet's date (23 June 2026), Nigel Farage was still awaiting a substantive response from the Electoral Commission to that letter. Public reporting does confirm that Lee Anderson, as Reform UK chairman, wrote to the Electoral Commission raising concerns about alleged Purdah breaches during the Makerfield by-election, related to the Ashton Library £1m funding announcement involving Andy Burnham. However, the available sources do not specify the exact date of the letter as 11 June, nor do they provide any public confirmation that Farage was "still awaiting a substantive response" to it as of 23 June. The status of correspondence with the Electoral Commission — whether a response had been received, was pending, or was outstanding — is not documented in the publicly available sources I located. The claim hinges on the status of private communications with a regulator, which is not publicly corroborated. Absence of public confirmation is not evidence the claim is false, but the needed evidence to verify the "awaiting a substantive response" assertion is unavailable. Therefore, the appropriate verdict is not-enough-evidence. Sources: - Wigan Today, "Row over funding for an historic Wigan library becomes a core issue in the Makerfield by-election" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/politics/row-over-funding-for-an-historic-wigan-library-becomes-a-core-issue-in-the-makerfield-by-election-8742270 - Wigan Today, "Makerfield by-election timeline: how we got to today's historic poll" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/makerfield-by-election-timeline-how-we-got-to-todays-historic-poll-8749477 - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" — https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html