Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Argyll and Bute > LA/AB/841

NOTE OF DECISION WEB VERSION

Complaint no. LA/AB/841 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Bruce Marshall of Argyll and Bute Council

1. Complaint number LA/AB/841 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Bruce Marshall (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles of Duty, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness, Honesty and Leadership in section 2 of the Code.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that the respondent instructed the complainant’s neighbour to remove a fence which the complainant had erected on land which the respondent claimed was in the ownership of the Council.

4. The respondent accepted that when he was approached by the complainant’s neighbour about the fence having been erected he suggested that she remove the fence.  He asked her son some time later if he had done that and he said that he would.  The respondent denied that he “instructed” the neighbour’s son to remove the fence as he was not in a position to do so.

5. It was clear that the respondent became involved in a dispute between neighbours regarding the erection of a fence and, believing that the land on which the fence had been erected belonged to the Council, he indicated to one of the parties that they could remove the fence.  It was the precise nature of what the respondent said to the complainant’s neighbour that was in dispute.  The complainant alleged that the respondent “instructed” his neighbour’s son to remove the fence whereas the respondent stated that he only “suggested” that the fence could be removed.

6. At the time of his involvement, the respondent believed the land to be in the ownership of the Council but an officer of the Council subsequently indicated to the respondent that, while the land appeared to be owned by the Council, there remained a degree of uncertainty about the actual ownership.  Having regard to the evidence, I found that the respondent did speak to the complainant’s neighbour about the removal of the fence but, in view of the conflict of evidence regarding the nature of the respondent’s conversation with the complainant’s neighbour, I was unable to determine whether the respondent instructed the removal of the fence or merely suggested that as a possible line of action.

 7. It would have been preferable if the respondent had treated the dispute about the fence as an operational matter and referred it to officers of the Council to deal with rather than getting involved but I considered that his involvement was a genuine response to a constituent’s complaint and that his action was well intentioned.  Having regard to all of the circumstances I did not consider that the respondent’s action could reasonably be regarded as constituting a breach of the Code.  Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not breached section 2 of the Code.

 8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Bruce Marshall had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

3 June 2009