Cost of investigations into complaints at Handforth Parish Council of Zoom fame reaches more than £85,000

March 9, 2022

The external costs incurred in relation to external investigations of member Code of Conduct complaints at Handforth Parish Council, which achieved notoriety after a chaotic Zoom meeting went viral, have reached £85,718 - more than its annual precept, it has emerged.

A report prepared for a meeting of Cheshire East’s Audit and Governance Committee this week (10 March) said the external costs had been exacerbated by the need for independent legal advice, and to deal with threats of judicial review. It also noted that there were significant internal costs arising from the investigations.

The report for the Audit and Governance Committee said the complaints, which related to both former and current parish councillors, had absorbed a significant amount of officer and member time, had resulted in external expense, and had attracted widespread negative media attention.

It revealed that the monitoring officer at Cheshire East had “over many years” received complaints in respect of councillors at Handforth (now known as Handforth Town Council). The monitoring officer’s database indicated that between 2018 and Nov 2020 a total of 21 formal complaints were received, with the number and frequency of complaints increasing over the last 18 months. The number of complaints rose significantly after media attention in 2020/21.

The complaints – some arising from within the parish council’s membership, and others as a result of the virtual meetings in December 2020 – led to six separate investigation reports.

A meeting of the parish council’s Planning and Environmental Committee went viral in February 2021 and saw Jackie Weaver, the acting town clerk, rise to fame.

The report for the Audit and Governance Committee noted that the parish council appeared “historically to have councillors with very different views on how the parish council should be run”.

The current complaints related largely to the same underlying issue, it said, namely disagreements regarding the operation of section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 which deals (amongst other things) with the issue of an elected member failing to attend meetings for six consecutive months, and the implications of this.

“These allegations also purported to challenge the Chief Executive in the role of Returning Officer, criticise the holding of an election and on several occasions threatened legal proceedings in relation to an election which culminated in a letter before action. Although the start point in such matters is often informal resolution, essentially the continuous threats of legal action prevented informal resolution in this case due to the immediate escalation to a formal challenge.”

In July and September 2020 complaints were made against councillors A, B and C. Subsequently those three councillors made complaints about councillors D, E and F who had made some of the original complaints.

Cheshire East’s monitoring officer decided that these complaints should be referred to a single external investigator for investigation because of the complexity and the nature of the allegations. The referral was made to Bevan Brittan.

The independent investigation resulted in three separate investigation reports in May 2021 in relation to the complaints arising within the parish council:

The first investigation report, in relation to the complaint about councillors A and B received on 8 July 2020, concluded that both subject members had potentially conducted themselves in breach of the provisions of the Members Code of Conduct relating to Objectivity, Openness, Leadership, and Respect for others.
The second investigation report, in relation to the complaints received on 8 and 16 September 2020 concluded that all three subject members (A, B and C) had potentially conducted themselves in breach of the provisions of the Members Code of Conduct relating to Objectivity, Openness, Leadership, Respect for others.
The third investigation report, in relation to the complaints received on 15 October 2020, concluded that all three subject members (D, E and F) had not breached of the provisions of the Members Code of Conduct relating to Objectivity, Leadership, Respect for others, Information, or Bullying. The investigators’ report did however note “that the subject members, as well as all other members of the Council, might benefit from appropriate advice and training in relation to ethical standards and the management of employment issues.”

Complaints about the Zoom meetings on 10 December 2020 of the Planning and Environment Committee and full council resulted in three additional separate investigation reports. These reports contained multiple recommendations and concluded that all three subject members had potentially conducted themselves in breach of the provisions of the Members Code of Conduct relating to Objectivity, Openness, Leadership, Respect for others.

The reports were provided to a Sub Committee for adjudication. However, due to the resignations of the subject councillors prior to the Sub Committee hearing none of the reports were considered by the Sub Committee and no formal findings made against any councillor.

In accordance with adopted procedure, each investigation report was reviewed on receipt by the monitoring officer in consultation with the Independent Person. On 16 June, the monitoring officer issued determination notices to all three subject members who had been found potentially in breach of the Code, confirming the course of action to be taken in relation to each complaint. Two of the three subject members resigned from office, and it was accordingly not possible to pursue these matters against former councillors. The remaining complaints would be directed to a Hearing Sub-Committee meeting.

The report to the Audit and Governance Sub Committee explained that during the final stages of investigation, and following receipt of the draft investigation reports, a number of complications had arisen which prolonged the process and increased the total cost. These included:

The sequential resignation from office of all three subject members destined to attend a Hearing Sub-Committee, over a prolonged period of time as the Hearing Sub Committee approached.
Following each resignation from office, extensive combined investigation reports and numerous supporting documents required review and redaction to ensure no former councillor information was disclosed inappropriately. The reports and appendices extended to more than 1,000 pages in total.
The investigation process itself was characterised by repeated and prolonged delays.
A letter from the monitoring officer intended to assist the parish council generated numerous complaints and representations. These were both about the content and publication of the letter and the actions of Cheshire East Council officers, and came predominately from councillors B and C.
By letter dated 8 February 2021, councillors A, B, C wrote to the council threatening judicial review of various matters related to the operation of section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 which had underpinned the initial tranche of councillor complaints. The council was obliged to engage further independent legal representation to compile a response to the threatened claim.
By further letter, councillor C made a number of very serious allegations of financial impropriety. Due to the nature of these allegations, it was incumbent on the council to liaise with the police and audit (to whom the allegations had also been made). "It was established that there was no foundation whatsoever to these allegations, however they served to delay the process and incur additional costs."
Further separate allegations were made by councillor C regarding the perceived illegality of an electoral process. "Again, the council was obliged to consider these in detail, and again they were found to have no foundation."
Numerous letters and emails of complaint from subject members in the above matters were sent challenging the council and its officers and the conduct of the code of conduct investigation process. The independent investigator was, as the matters were concluding, also subject to complaints which necessitated resolution. "The nature and the manner in which the complaints were expressed resulted in the external investigators firm engaging their own staff protection protocols. This has included complaints to external statutory bodies such as Information Commissioner and professional associations."
There continued to be information requests, complaints and correspondence from former parish councillors on the same issues that were subject to investigation. Additional correspondence continued to be received relating to ongoing potential litigation and complaints against Cheshire East Council officers.

The report to the Audit and Governance Committee said that in addition to the external costs, there were a number of internal costs that had been incurred in the progression of these complaints.

“Councillors appointed to the sub-committee were obliged to spend many hours preparing for and attending pre-hearing meetings and aborted hearings. An estimate would be approximately 30 hours spent by each councillor on reading and preparation and a similar amount of time again spent on pre-hearings,” it said.

“Officer time spent on administering these complaints, which includes briefings, preparation for meetings and hearings, attendance at hearings, dealing with correspondence, dealing with judicial review and complaints. These officer related costs total more than £10,000 based on a standard blended charge rate.”

The recommendations in the report are that the committee (a) note the content of the report; and (b) agree any consequential amendments to the Code of Conduct and associated process to be included within Cheshire East’s review of its procedure for dealing with complaints. Cheshire East are also considering the adoption of the revised Local Government Association Model Code of Conduct.