The Member Conduct Panel of Leicestershire County Council was scheduled to consider an investigation into alleged breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct by Councillor C. Whitford CC. The panel was to review findings from an external investigation concerning email correspondence with residents, social media activity, and the registration of interests.

Investigation into Alleged Breach of Members' Code of Conduct by Councillor C. Whitford CC

The panel was scheduled to discuss an investigation report concerning allegations against Councillor C. Whitford CC, who at the time of the alleged conduct was the Council's Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Waste. The investigation was initiated following complaints from four members of the public between September and October 2025.

The core of the complaints related to email correspondence between Councillor Whitford CC and local residents who had raised concerns about the unauthorised hanging of St George's flags on lampposts in the village of Markfield. Residents had expressed concerns about the legality, safety, and community impact of the flags, and objected to the tone and content of Councillor Whitford CC's replies.

According to the report pack, the alleged breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct included:

• Failure to treat members of the public with respect: Email responses were described as dismissive, personalised, and/or confrontational, failing to adequately address residents' concerns.
• Bullying and harassment: In at least one email exchange, Councillor Whitford CC allegedly referred to the possibility of disclosing a complainant's identity, which was perceived as intimidating.
• Bringing the Council into disrepute: This was alleged in relation to the tone of communications and potentially discriminatory or offensive social media posts.
• Failure to promote equalities: Concerns were raised about inflammatory assertions regarding religion or faith matters within an official response.
• Failure to register interests: An allegation was made that Councillor Whitford CC had failed to register a directorship in his register of interests.

The investigation report, prepared by ch&i associates, concluded that the Code of Conduct was engaged in relation to the email correspondence as Councillor Whitford CC had used his Council email account and the issue related to Council functions. The investigators found that some of Councillor Whitford CC's email responses contained personalised comments that contributed to residents feeling belittled or intimidated.

Regarding the social media allegations, the investigators decided not to make a finding of fact on proportionality grounds. In relation to the register of interests, the investigators found that Companies House information indicated Councillor Whitford CC was a director of Appchatz Ltd during the relevant period and that this directorship should have been registered. However, they noted Councillor Whitford CC's explanation that he believed dissolution had already occurred and did not recommend further action on this specific point.

The investigation report recommended that the Member Conduct Panel consider findings that Councillor Whitford CC had failed to treat the public with respect, bullied at least one complainant, brought his role and the Council into disrepute, and failed to promote equalities. A technical breach relating to the registration of the Appchatz Ltd directorship was also noted, with a recommendation for no further action.

Councillor Whitford CC had confirmed his acceptance of the findings relating to the email correspondence. No further representations had been received from him on the remaining matters addressed in the investigation report.

The panel was also scheduled to hear the views of the Independent Person, Pamela Roberts, who had considered the investigation report to be well-evidenced and reasoned. The report pack indicated that the hearing would proceed in public unless the panel resolved to exclude the press and public for specific parts of the proceedings where exempt or confidential information was likely to be disclosed. A redacted public version of the investigation report was prepared for publication, subject to the panel's decision. The potential sanctions for a breach of the Code of Conduct, as outlined in the Council's Procedure, could include a formal letter, censure, restricted access to council resources, an apology, training, or conciliation.