Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

A Reform councillor failed to declare a company he owned, triggering a formal complaint from a constituent.

Terry Mole (Reform UK, Ramsgate Division) was accused by a constituent of flouting the Localism Act, as he did not disclose his ownership of a delivery firm.

Cllr Terry Mole's register of interests - until a complaint was filed by a constituent - stated that he owns a company, but the name of the company was omitted.

It simply read: "Company owner - Debt Transfer Services". The Localism Act 2011 stipulates that councillors must accurately disclose their financial interests within 28 days of being elected.

However, Byline Times found that, rather than running a (nameless) 'debt transfer' company, it is actually a firm called DAT Transport Services Ltd - a delivery company operating in Kent.

When questioned by a constituent about the matter - before this outlet found the real nature of the firm - Cllr Mole replied suggesting they meet in-person, but refused to give the name of his company via email.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

Cllr Mole had said: "I would rather not pass personal information to someone unknown to me through the internet."

But constituent Carly told him: "Elected councillors are required to be transparent about their sources of income and assets they own. Your register of interests is still incomplete; it does not name the business you own."

Cllr Mole then allegedly stopped responding to her emails to follow up with the invitation.

The resident then requested Kent County Council instruct Cllr Mole to disclose the relevant details of the company he owns.

She asked the council's democratic services team to confirm whether or not Cllr Mole is breaking the law. After a month of failing to get answers, she filed a formal complaint to the council.

On November 11th, a council official told the constituent: "Further to your emails regarding Mr Mole's register of interests, I can confirm his employment has now been updated to include the name of the company for which he is director."

The constituent of Cllr Mole, Carly, said: "I find it very odd that Terry Mole went to these lengths to avoid revealing the name of his company. It's in the public interest for him to be transparent and tell us where his earnings come from, but he refused to talk about it when I contacted him directly, and didn't answer my follow-up email at all."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

"Why didn't Kent County Council check the submissions from their councillors? Why are some of them allowed to get away with highly evasive answers on their registers of interest?

"The public are sick of politicians that have vested interests, so we need all of them to honestly disclose how they (and their spouses) earn a living."

Speaking to Byline Times, a spokesperson for Kent County Council's democratic services team appeared to confirm there was no sanction for appearing to break the rules, saying: "I can confirm that, following receipt of relevant enquiries, Officers sought clarification from Mr Mole to check the details in the Register to ensure they were correct. Following this clarification, his Register of Interest has been updated accordingly."

Though the problem is not confined to Nigel Farage's party, it is the latest in a series of inaccuracies from Reform councillors, failing to provide the full picture of their financial interests.

As reported in our On the Ground column i...