This is an opportunity for Members of Council to ask the Mayor, Members of the Executive or the Chairman of any Committee or Sub-Committee a question on notice under Procedure Rule 10.2.

The Mayor reported that a question had been received under Procedure Rule 10.2.

Councillor Freeman asked the following question for which notice had been given:

“Between 2007 and 2012 this Council pursued a policy of issuing Fixed Penalty Notices to the Registered Keepers of Motor Vehicles which were witnessed depositing litter onto the highway, resulting in some £342,000.00 being gathered in by way of fines and prosecutions.

This practice was abruptly ceased in 2012.

To what extent was the report from the Local Government Ombudsman in relation to complaint reference 11 016 909 responsible for this decision and why has this report never been shared or reported upon to this Council Meeting?

Further following criticism from the District Auditor, what steps have the Council taken to make public the flaws in the policy they pursued and reparation to those members of the public who under duress paid those Fixed Penalty Notices?”

In response, the Leader of the Council advised that, with the full support of the public, the Council has taken a strong line on people who litter the borough and that in this particular case, the complainant took issue with the strength of the Council’s letter. Prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement, the Council conducted a review of procedures and the letters to registered keepers of vehicles where littering had been observed, to tell the Council who was driving, were toned down as they could have been considered to be misrepresenting the position and be seen as imposing a legal requirement on the registered keeper.

The Leader asserted that the Council had changed its previous practice and that it had not ceased, as the question stated. The change was operational only and was dealt with administratively by officers and was not referred to full Council, which would have been an unusual step for any council to undertake in view of the fact that the Ombudsman had decided not to issue an adverse report in relation to the complaint.

As the Ombudsman decided to take no further action, the complainant referred the matter to the District Auditor alleging that the income derived from the fixed penalty notices was unlawful. The District Auditor’s report concluded that there was no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing which would justify any intervention in relation to the accounts.

The matter had been thoroughly investigated by both the Ombudsman and the District Auditor and neither had determined that the Council’s procedures were unreasonable or unlawful.

The Leader drew attention to the fact that the Manchester Evening News story was incorrect as the original complainant had not paid the fixed penalty. He took up the questioner’s assertion that people who had not committed the offence would have been ‘under duress’ to pay the penalty and stated that this was not supported by evidence or the findings of the District Auditor. As neither the Ombudsman nor District Auditor had made any suggestion that the Council should consider repaying any of the monies, the Leader stated that there was no basis on which the Council should consider making any reparation.

Referring to the Ombudsman’s report and comments that the letter was ‘misleading and inaccurate’, Councillor Freeman asked as a supplementary question what this matter said about openness and transparency under the Leader’s watch?

Councillor Colledge replied that the matter demonstrated that if people want to litter they will not get away with it nor would the Council stand by and let anyone spoil the Borough. The Leader also emphasised that the Council would continue to take action by lawful means and would ensure its practice was in accordance with the relevant guidance.