Liberal Democrat councillors cleared of wrongdoing by Canterbury City Council after police probe

Two leading councillors accused of failing to properly declare their financial interests have spoken out after being cleared of wrongdoing.

Alex Ricketts and Michael Dixey – who represent the Liberal Democrats on Canterbury City Council (CCC) – were investigated by the authority and the police following an anonymous complaint.

The allegations centred around claims the pair had not fully disclosed to the council their interests, as well as those of their wives, in specific companies - a potential criminal offence under the Localism Act of 2011.

But the matter has now been closed two months on after CCC concluded both councillors had been transparent about their involvement in the respective firms, having appropriately declared their interests on a different section of the disclosable pecuniary interests form.

There is no right to appeal this decision for the initial complainant, and the council has closed its investigation.

Cllr Mike Sole, leader of the Lib Dem group on CCC, said: “It was clear from the outset that this anonymous complaint was vindictive and groundless.

“I am obviously delighted that both Michael and Alex, who are exemplary councillors, have been found to have done nothing wrong, an outcome that was never in doubt.

“However, the fact that they have been wrongly accused on the basis of an anonymous complaint that has taken up both council and police time, is inexcusable.”

The law states that, to avoid potential conflicts, a councillor should disclose if they, or a spouse, own at least 1% of shares in a company with land or a place of business in the council’s area - in this instance the Canterbury district.

Neither Cllr Dixey or Cllr Ricketts had sought to conceal their links to the firms referenced by the complainant, which are registered in their names and of which they have publicly disclosed themselves to be directors.

Cllr Dixey was accused of failing to declare his 100% ownership of consultancy firm GGR Associates Ltd, which is based at Linden House in Linden Grove, Canterbury.

The shareholding did not appear on Cllr Dixey’s register of interests under the relevant “securities” section, but the chartered engineer had disclosed his directorship of the firm under “employment”.

The city council’s legal chief - known as a monitoring officer - also looked at claims Cllr Dixey should not have listed his wife, Margaret, as “retired” when Companies House records show she is the company secretary of GGR Associates Ltd.

The accusations against Cllr Ricketts centred on his ownership of two separate businesses he had declared his directorship of, but not the shares he holds.

The first is management consultancy Alex Ricketts Ltd, which Companies House documents show he is the sole stakeholder in.

It is registered to the office of an accountancy firm - a standard practice with many companies - in Eastleigh, near Southampton.

The second is PR and marketing firm Wake Up and Smell the Copy Ltd, for which Cllr Rocketts is listed as a “marketing manager” and 50% stakeholder.

It is registered to an office in 20-22 Wenlock Road, London, with Cllr Ricketts seemingly making use of a “registered office service” that allows business owners to use an address different to their own.

Its LinkedIn page describes itself as “virtual” and there is no office address on its website, suggesting the firm has no physical headquarters.

The anonymous complainant argued that should any of the work for either of Cllr Ricketts’ companies be carried out at his home in Canterbury, it would constitute the property being a “place of business” in the district, therefore requiring a declaration of his securities.

For the same reasons, questions were asked about whether Cllr Ricketts should have declared his wife’s ownership of a company called Katie Hilton Ltd.

Companies House shows Katie Ricketts is the only shareholder of the business, which is registered to the same Eastleigh address as Alex Ricketts Ltd.

Described as a “business psychologist”, Mrs Ricketts - who changed her surname on Companies House from Hilton in February - runs a website called katiehiltoncoaching.com.

The complainant again argued that should any of her work take place at the couple’s home then it should be considered a “place of business” in the district, requiring Cllr Ricketts to declare her shareholding and not just her directorship, as he had.

After being exonerated by the council, Cllr Dixey said: “I am of course relieved this matter has concluded with the expected result that both Alex and I have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

“It was obvious to anyone who examined the detail that this was a malicious, and entirely baseless complaint, which should have been dismissed out of hand.”

Cllr Ricketts added: “I have been clear all along that I have nothing to hide, and I suppose I should be grateful that this has eventually been confirmed. That it took two months and a police investigation to do so is less than ideal.”

CCC spokesman Rob Davies says Kent Police confirmed to the authority’s monitoring officer – its legal chief – at the start of may that “there was insufficient evidence in support of the complaint and that it would take no action”.

"The monitoring officer's investigation has now ended,” he added.

“It found the complaint fails the Local Assessment Criteria test, which is one of two tests used to assess whether a complaint is valid for further investigation.

"This was on the basis that there is no or insufficient information/evidence to substantiate the complaint.

"The monitoring officer concluded that both councillors had been transparent in declaring their interests.

"The complaint has therefore been rejected and no further action will be taken."