Deputy council leader fined £2,400 over property loan disclosure failings

A deputy council leader has been fined £2,400 for failing to register a financial interest after lending a friend £70,000 to part-fund a property purchase.

Tom Hollis, the deputy leader of Ashfield District Council in Nottinghamshire, was not disqualified from serving as a councillor after a judge was told the 30-year-old had not acted dishonestly.

Hollis, who is also a Nottinghamshire county councillor, pleaded guilty on Monday to two offences under the Localism Act of failing without reasonable excuse to notify both authorities of a disclosable pecuniary interest when he was re-elected in 2019 and 2021.

Nottingham Magistrates’ Court was told Hollis, of the Ashfield Independents group, earns £ 4,500 per month from his council roles and loaned around £70,000 to fellow councillor Helen-Ann Smith in 2018.

She also received £5,000 from another party and bought a property in Forest Road, Skegby, for around £75,000.

Opening the facts of the case, prosecutor Sinjin Bulbring said Councillor Smith registered herself as the legal owner of the property, but Hollis failed to register as a beneficial owner.

Following the sale of the house in 2021, the court heard, around £97,000 was transferred to Hollis’s father and then to him, although £12,000 was returned to Ms Smith to pay capital gains tax.

Hollis’s barrister, Gul Nawaz Hussain KC, told the court: “There was no dishonesty in this case and that’s most important when one considers the role that this man performs within his local community.”

Hollis, of Yew Tree Drive, Huthwaite, now has debts of around £80,000, said Mr Hussain, who told the court the rationale behind the loan was to help a friend.

Passing sentence, the Deputy Chief Magistrate, Tan Ikram, said of Hollis: “Throughout the period 2019 to 2021 he was the beneficial owner of the said property and was re-elected twice without disclosure on his part of that financial interest.

“It is not suggested by the prosecution that the defendant was dishonest.

“It is not suggested that he benefitted from any decision made in his role as a councillor as regards his non-disclosure.

“These offences, I am told, only came to light because of a police inquiry in relation to an unrelated case, and because the matter was in the hands of the police this matter comes before the courts, rather than being dealt with by internal processes within the local authority.”

The judge added: “I do not accept it is a technical breach.”Indeed, as the deputy leader of the council, a position of some significance, it might be thought that he was a man who more so ought to have known of his obligations as regards disclosure of his interests.

“I accept what is said – that there is no obvious benefit by his non-disclosure.

“It cannot be suggested that, for example, it was motivated to avoid scrutiny of his loan to his friend.

“Whilst these offences are serious, I can envisage more serious instances of non-disclosure, where there can be said to be actual benefit.”

As well as being fined, Hollis was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £960, with his first payment of £150 required to be made within seven days.