Cllr Rizwan Jalil has been exonerated by Sandwell Council in respect of a breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors. Here is the decision which Chief Executive Shokat Lal and Monitoring Officer Michael Jones held back for many months although the Decision Note is dated yesterday!
Decision Notice of the Deputy Monitoring Officer for Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011
Reference: MC20250313
Complainant(s): Mr. J. Saunders
Subject Member: Cllr Rizwan Jalil
Person Conducting
the Assessment: James McLaughlin, Deputy Monitoring Officer Date of Assessment: 12 May 2026
1. Complaint
1.1 A complaint was received on 13 March 2025 from Mr. J. Saunders, stating:
“On 27th January, 2025 Cllr Jag Singh was chairing Licensing sub Committee 2. At some point an application for, as I understand it, the grant of a taxi licence was due to be decided. Shortly before the application an unknown Labour Councillor, believed to be Cllr Rizwan Jalil, made contact with Cllr Singh and attempted to suborn him, and to ensure that he and the sub-Committee granted the licence.
Cllr Singh acted very properly. He immediately informed one or more law officers of the Council of the attempt to unduly influence him. I understand that he was advised to recuse himself from hearing the application which he duly did. Cllr Fenton took the Chair.
Cllr John Giles was later informed of what had happened. I understand that he was appalled at this crass corruption.
This was a disgraceful and egregious breach of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct by the Councillor - believed to be Jalil - particularly the requirements of Councillors to act in a selfless manner, and with Integrity and honesty.
I attempted to seek information concerning this appalling incident from the Monitoring Officer and Cllrs Giles, Singh and Fenton without success, apart from a bland form of words from the Monitoring Officer. This has all the hallmarks of yet another Sandwell Council cover-up of Labour wrongdoing – hence this formal Standards Complaint which is made to ensure that this issue is dealt with in the correct manner.”
2. Complaint summary
2.1 The complaint relates to an alleged conversation between Councillor Jag Singh and Councillor Rizwan Jalil. The complainant has submitted that this conversation took place at some point before or during the meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee on 27 January 2025. No other information has been submitted by the complainant in respect of the circumstances of the conversation. [Note 1]
2.2 The complainant alleges that the subject member referred to a licensing committee hearing being held that same day (27 January 2025), to be chaired by Councillor Jag Singh. The complainant alleges that the subject member raised the issue of one of the applicants for a private hire licence, scheduled to be discussed at the licensing hearing, with Councillor Jag Singh prior to hearing the application.
2.3 In considering a previous complaint in relation to this matter, [Note 2] the Monitoring Officer conducted interviews with the subject member and separately with Councillor Jag Singh. A summary account of the allegation in the complaint was put to the subject member and opportunity provided for the subject member to give their own account of events.
2.4 The subject member wholly disputed the allegation and account of the complainant and set out an alternate account of events.
2.5 The subject member advised that he was in the vicinity of the Members Lounge in Sandwell Council House with Councillor Randhawa and saw the complainant. The complainant and subject member then spoke briefly on the corridor after Councillor Randhawa had entered the Members Lounge. [Note 3]
2.6 The subject member account is that he was aware an individual would be attending the licensing hearing later that day for his private hire taxi licence application to be considered and determined. He had gained that knowledge following a conversation with an Imam who had telephoned him separately. During that call, the subject member recollected the Imam stating he had “a friend of his coming to committee, please can you look into it”.
2.7 In response, the subject member advised the Imam that the applicant should take a lawyer with him to assist in the hearing process as his representative.
2.8 The subject member states that he gave this account to Councillor Jag Singh during their exchange and he considered that Councillor Jag Singh misunderstood and misinterpreted the information provided by the subject member and instead took this as an attempt to influence the outcome of the licensing hearing. [Note 4]
2.9 The subject member stated that at no time had they ever sought to influence the outcome of any hearing or decision-making process and, as a former member of the licensing committee, that he was wholly familiar with these requirements. Further, as holder of a private hire licence outside of borough, the subject member stated he was fully aware of the impact such inappropriate actions could have.
2.10 In his consideration of this matter, the Monitoring Officer asked several clarification questions of the subject member. Responses provided were wholly consistent with the account of events that they provided. [Note 5]
2.11 The Monitoring Officer established from the subject member and Councillor Jag Singh that there were no third-party witnesses to the conversation and its alleged content. The complainant has also not provided details on any third-party witnesses. [Note 6]
3. Consultation with Independent Person
3.1 The Independent Member was consulted and agrees with the assessment that it would be impossible to determine whether the allegations or Councillor Jalil’s account were correct. [Note 7]
4. Stage One - Legal Threshold
4.1 The subject member is currently a serving Councillor. At the time of the disputed exchange he was present on Council premises. His account of the conversation indicates that it clearly relates to Council business, namely the process for considering private hire taxi licence applications.
4.2 As a result of this, the allegation is capable of being a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to the following components of the Code -
5. Disrepute
As a councillor:
5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must disclose and resolve any interests and relationships.
Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
5. Stage Two Initial Assessment
5.1 Whilst the Monitoring Officer has previously considered a complaint in relation to the same matter from another individual, this is not a repeat complaint and therefore none of the criteria in the Stage Two Initial Assessment apply, and therefore the matter shall proceed to the Public Interest Test.
6. Public Interest Test
6.1 The Public Interest Test is satisfied taking account of the following factors:
- The breach is capable of bringing the council into disrepute
6.2 It is therefore in the public interest to deal with this matter under the Arrangements for complaints under the Code of Conduct.
7. Decision
7.1 Having reviewed the original consideration of a separate complaint connected to this matter, and after consulting and having regard to the views of the Independent Person, the Deputy Monitoring Officer considers the complaint not proven.
7.2 The absence of independent witnesses or corroborating evidence to support the accuracy of the account provide by either the complainant or subject member is fundamental to this complaint. As a result, and on a balance of probabilities, it would not be possible to determine which account of events was accurate. It would therefore not be proportionate to proceed with any further investigation. This conclusion was reached by the Monitoring Officer in their assessment and having reviewed all of the available information, the Deputy Monitoring Officer has agreed with that assessment. [Note 8]
7.3 On this basis it would be inappropriate for the Deputy Monitoring Officer to recommend or undertake any further action on this matter within the scope of the complaints process.
7.4 The Deputy Monitoring Officer does consider that the subject member would benefit from refresher training on the requirements of the Code, specifically that any scenarios when a member feels an attempt may have been made to influence decision-making should be notified to the Monitoring Officer. Training delivered personally by the Monitoring Officer to the subject Member has taken place since this incident occurred. [Note 9]
7.5 In accordance with the arrangements for consideration of such complaints, the Deputy Monitoring Officer will report the outcome of the complaint to the Group Leader and Whip of the relevant political group. The political group may determine how to proceed in relation to the issues raised in this complaint. Any such decision and process shall be undertaken entirely independent to Sandwell Council. [Note 10]
8. If referring for Local Resolution:
8.1 The Deputy Monitoring Officer agrees with the Monitoring Officer’s conclusion that complaint against the subject member is not proven and therefore local resolution has not been considered.
9. Notification of decision
9.1 This decision notice is sent to the:
• Complainant.
• Member against whom the complaint was made.
• Independent Person.
9.2 Summary information will be provided to the Leader and Chief Whip of the political group for both complainant and subject member.
10. Appeal
10.1 There is no right of appeal against the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision.
End
Note 1: There was further evidence in the form of an email from ex-Cllr John Giles where he states that he thought Cllr Jalill's behaviour was disgraceful. I saw the email with my own eyes, but was not supplied with a copy. I believe it was sent to other members of the Committee. Further they were aware of what happened and why were statements not taken from them? of course, I wasn't there - although the Monitoring Officer was!
Note 2: An interesting point that there was another complaint. Further that the Monitoring Officer, Michael Jones, who was directly involved in the actual incident saw fit to undertake interviews when he was himself a witness and should not have done so as he had a very obvious conflict of interest.
Note 3: My reading of this is that the first formal complaint was from Cllr Jag Singh - the Chair of the Committee - which is precisely what I was told.
Note 4: Jag Singh is NOT a moron.
Note 5: The Monitoring Officer was there! Jag Singh went to him on the day. He arranged for Cllr Singh to stand down for the afternoon session and for Cllr (as was) Fenton to take the Chair! Why, if he was not concerned ON THE DAY?
Note 6: The Monitoring Officer WAS an Independent Witness. WTF? And what happened to Cllr Randhawa?
Note 7: I am not going to cast aspersions on the Independent Person. I don't know who s/he is. The Monitoring Officer (and Deputy) are Solictors. It would have been perfectly possible for the Standards Committee to hear the matter and decide whether they believe Singh of Jalil as they did, for example, with Ian Jones and Mahboob Hussain. It's like a, er court hearing which you might imagine Solicitors might be familiar with.
Note 8: Cllr Singh has not been believed! And why is there mention of the Monitoring Officer again when he WAS a witness? Stonewall conflict of interest.
Note 9: WTF? And has refresher training been given to Cllr Singh who allegedly got things so totally wrong?
Note 10: Over to your Reform!
LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)
I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts or Skidders passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory or otherwise unlawful material must read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
We may also add hyperlinks or references to content in our associated blogs, “As The Crow Flies!” (at crowmultimedia.blogspot.com) and Rotten Council Governance - Legal Review (at rottencouncils.blogspot.com). Reference to content in those blogs also forms part of the context, meaning of, and justification for, contents in this blog.
In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.
Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).
We have had to remove the direct comment facility from this blog due to the malicious activity of a West Bromwich woman but we are pleased to receive comments via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com, on Twitter via our publishers @CrowMultimedia or via our dedicated Facebook Group: “The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth to Power!” We are happy to publish any sensible commentary and offer a right of reply where applicable. We can also publish “guest” posts on mutually agreed terms.
If you consider that anything written is defamatory or otherwise unlawful please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.