Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Midlothian Council > LA/Mi/601

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Mi/601 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Adam Montgomery of Midlothian Council

1. Complaint number LA/Mi/601 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Adam Montgomery ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 3.5 which states that a councillor must comply with the rules for the payment to councillors of remuneration, allowances and expenses.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent claimed mileage allowance based on 22 miles, for return journeys between his home in Penicuik and the Council offices in Dalkeith, when the actual distance was, at most, 20 miles.

4. The respondent's explanation for the distance claimed was that his journey was based on the easiest traffic free route.

5. The administration and audit of the Council's Scheme for travel allowances for councillors is the responsibility of the Council. In addition, allowances paid under the Scheme are subject to audit by the Council's external auditors. The conclusion reached by the Council's Internal Audit Department, following investigation of the issue was that, taking into account home addresses, routes available, the time taken over various routes and the reliability of odometers, none of the mileages claimed were unreasonable or invalid. A further check carried out by the Council, using an RAC route planner, gave a distance of just over 23 miles for the same journey. Using the same route planner and selecting "low traffic/ fastest route" parameters I obtained a distance of 22.78 miles for the return journey.

6. In their comments on the matter the Council's External Auditors stated that, whilst not unreasonable in themselves, the variances suggested that there was scope for clarification of the guidance issued to members on travel allowances. In response to this the Council advised members of the new Council elected on 3 May 2007, in Guidance issued to them on that date, that where practicable they should use the shortest route for a journey and if this was not possible they should note the reason on their claim form.

7. Having carefully evaluated the information available I considered that the difference between the distance of 22 miles claimed by the respondent and the figure of 20 miles regarded by the complainant as being "the limit" could be attributed to a variety of factors, including the precise route selected, the precision or calibration of the odometer or the actual method used to calculate the distance. I did not regard the variance of 2 miles as being significant and I noted that the distance claimed was within the figure of 23 miles calculated using an RAC route planner. Having regard to these factors, and to the fact that the Council's approved Scheme for travel allowances prior to 3 May 2007 did not stipulate how the routes for journeys should be selected, I found that it was reasonable for the respondent to claim 22 miles for the journey and that, by so doing, he had not acted in a dishonest manner. I also found that the respondent had not failed to comply with the Council's approved Scheme for the payment of travel allowances and that he had not breached paragraph 3.5 of the Code.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Adam Montgomery had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
16 August 2007