NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNCIL STANDARDS AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
17 September 2025
Complaints Update
 |
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 A standing report regarding complaints that Members and voting co-opted Members of North Yorkshire Council and parish and town councils in North Yorkshire may have breached the relevant Code of Conduct for Members is brought to scheduled ordinary meetings of the Standards and Governance Committee and other meetings as the Monitoring Officer deems appropriate.
2.2 North Yorkshire Council is the principal authority for parish and town councils in North Yorkshire for the purposes of the standards provisions in the Localism Act 2011. It is responsible for receiving and handling complaints that a parish/town councillor may have breached that authority’s code of conduct for Members. That is the extent of North Yorkshire Council’s jurisdiction in respect of parish/town council governance; parish/town councils are separate legal entities responsible for their own general governance and North Yorkshire Council has no jurisdiction to consider other complaints for example about the way in which the parish/town council has or has not done something, or about particular parish/town council decisions or employees.
3.0 CONTEXT AND SCALE
3.1 Within North Yorkshire there are currently:
· 729 individual parishes
· 412 parish and town councils, including the new town councils for Harrogate and Scarborough
· 160 parish meetings
· 90 NYC councillors
3.2 The national context:
· NYC has the largest number of parish and town councils of any local authority in the country
· The next nearest council - Somerset Council has 272 plus three groups of councils
· 51% have less than 30
· 97.5% of councils have less than 200
· There are only 6 councils with over 200 parish councils
· Only 2 councils have over 300 parish councils
3.3 The North Yorkshire context:
NYC is one of the largest local authorities in the country, in terms of geographic area, and there is a significant number of the smallest form of parish sector organisations, parish meetings (24%). Overall, parish sector organisations are generally smaller and charge a smaller precept (if any) than other similar councils. This uniquely larger number of parish Sector organisations are spread over a significantly large rural area and generally have very limited resources.
· Within the NYC area the average precept charge is 75% less than the national average (£20,212)
· 46.6% of Parish Councils have total annual precept income less than £5k
· Only 5.6% (28) Parish Councils have total annual precept income more than £100k
· Only 4 (0.8%) Parish Councils have total annual precept income more than £300k
4.0 STANDARDS COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
Previous municipal years
4.1 During the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, the Council received 174 complaints that members may have breached the relevant authority’s code of conduct for Members.
4.2 During the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, a further 133 complaints were received.
4.3 A more detailed breakdown of the complaints statistics for the two full municipal years is attached at Appendix 1 to this report for Members’ information.
4.4 The statistics for the municipal years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 are now published on the Council’s website at:
Councillors' code of conduct | North Yorkshire Council
Current municipal year
4.5 During the period 1 April 2025 to 29 August 2025, a further 39 complaints have been received.
4.6 A more detailed breakdown of the complaints statistics for the current year is attached at Appendix 2 to this report for Members’ information.
5.0 BREAKDOWN OF COMPLAINT STATISTICS
Pre-assessments and Assessments for the current year
5.1 So far this municipal year, of the 39 complaints received:
a) 20 complaints were pre-assessed by the Monitoring Officer/Deputy Monitoring Officer and did not proceed to full assessment. These included:
· 1 against an NYC Councillor where there was no evidence presented that the councillor was acting in their official capacity at the relevant times;
· 14 against councillors and clerks of two parish councils which did not progress to an assessment as they were deemed to be outside the Monitoring Officer’s jurisdiction as they related to matters of internal parish council governance and parish council employees.
· 1 against a parish councillor where there was no evidence presented that the councillor was acting in their official capacity at the relevant times;
· 1 which was mistakenly sent to the NYC Monitoring Officer when it related to another council.
· 1 which was a second anonymous complaint against an NYC Councillor – the first related complaint had been assessed and no further action was required.
· 1 against an NYC Councillor where there was no evidence of a breach of the Code but in any event the subject member had already apologised to the complainant.
· 1 against a town councillor where there was no evidence that comments on social media were posted whilst the councillor was acting in their official capacity.
b) 14 complaints have progressed to assessment by the Monitoring Officer/Deputy Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Persons for Standards. Of those assessed complaints:
i. 11 complaints did not merit referral for formal investigation, for example:
· a parish councillor’s failure to declare an interest, which had been addressed by them;
· allegations of a parish councillor bullying and harassing the clerk where insufficient evidence was provided of a potential breach of the relevant code of conduct;
· two concerned different NYC Councillors, one relating to levels of engagement with a parish council, and the other regarding alleged disrespect, whereby in both cases there was insufficient evidence presented of a potential breach of the Code of Conduct;
· two concerned the same NYC Councillor from the same member of the public - in both cases there was insufficient evidence presented of a potential breach of the Code of Conduct;
· an anonymous complaint regarding an NYC Councillor alleging illegal activity which was not evidenced.
ii. 1 complaint was recommended for informal resolution: the parish councillor concerned was urged to consider apologising to the complainant.
iii. 2 complaints have been referred for investigation (Investigations 11 and 12 listed in section 5.2 below).
c) 5 further complaints will have been assessed by the time of this meeting.
The remaining complaints are in preparatory stages or awaiting assessment. A further update will be given to the Committee when the Monitoring Officer is in a position to do so.
Investigations/Determinations since Vesting Day
5.2 Since Vesting Day (1 April 2023), 34 complaints have been referred for investigation, through 12 investigations:
· Investigation 1 – 1 complaint against 1 North Yorkshire Councillor.
Referred to Hearings Panel. Breach of Code found. Sanction – apologies. Recommendations made to authority.
· Investigation 2 – 1 complaint against 11 Town Councillors.
Referred to Hearings Panel. No breach. Recommendations made to authority.
· Investigation 3–1 complaint against 2 individual Parish Councillors.
Referred to Hearings Panel. Breach of Code found. Recommended sanction – apologies, training, review of one PC Code.
· Investigation 4 – 1 complaint against 1 individual Parish Councillor.
Referred to Hearings Panel. Breach of Code found. Sanction – recommended that PC issue private letter of censure to the subject Member.
· Investigation 5 – 2 complaints from different individuals about the same matter against 1 Town Councillor.
The Investigating Officer found no evidence of breach of code. Accepted by Monitoring Officer and Independent Person as sufficient. No further action required.
· Investigation 6 - 1 complaint against 1 individual Parish Councilor.
Referred to Hearings Panel. Breach of Code found. Sanction – recommended that the subject Member undertake inclusion and diversity training.
· Investigation 7 – 2 complaints from different individuals about the same matter against 1 North Yorkshire Councillor.
Complaint is live. The Monitoring Officer will update the Committee when in a position to do so.
· Investigation 8 – 2 complaints about the same matter against 4 Town Councillors.
The Investigating Officer found no evidence of breach of code. Accepted by Monitoring Officer and Independent Person as sufficient. No further action required.
· Investigation 9 – 3 complaints about the same matter against 1 Town Councillor.
The Investigating Officer concluded that there was evidence of a breach of the code by the subject member who had since resigned. In accordance with section 9 of the North Yorkshire Council standards complaints procedure, the Deputy Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person for Standards and the parties and was satisfied the matter could reasonably be resolved informally without the need for a Hearing.
· Investigation 10– 1 complaint against 1 individual Town Councillor.
The Investigating Officer found no evidence of breach of code. Accepted by Monitoring Officer and Independent Person as sufficient. No further action required.
· Investigation 11– 1 complaint against 1 North Yorkshire Councillor.
Complaint is live. The Monitoring Officer will update the Committee when in a position to do so.
· Investigation 12 – 1 complaint against 1 North Yorkshire Councillor.
Complaint is live. The Monitoring Officer will update the Committee when in a position to do so.
5.3 The volume of complaints and associated correspondence and information governance requests meant a sustained heavy workload for officers and the Independent Persons during the first two years since Vesting Day. We are pleased to report that the flow of new complaints is reducing and the average time taken to process complaints is now significantly reduced as the previous backlog has been eroded. The Monitoring Officer and Deputy Monitoring Officer would again wish to take this opportunity to thank all the Independent Persons for their valued views, time, patience and input into what can be time-consuming and complex matters.
6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 There are no significant financial implications arising from this report.
7.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 There are no significant legal implications arisingfrom this report.
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL/CLIMATE CHANGEIMPLICATIONS
8.1 There are no significant environmental/climate changeimplications arising from this report.
9.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1 There are no significant equalities implications arisingfrom this report
 |
BARRY KHAN
Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Democratic Servicesand Monitoring Officer Background Documents: None
County Hall NORTHALLERTON
3 September 2025