External investigators have had be brought in at Staffordshire County Council to meet demand after the level of complaints made against elected members soared from 12 to 168 in a year.

Comments made on social media sparked the vast majority of complaints made between May 2026 and April 2026 – 135 in total – and 144 out of 168 were made against Reform UK members – 85.7%.

There were 19 complaints made against Conservative members – 11.3% of the share – and five lodged against independent members or other political groups.

Most of the complaints – 138 – were made by members of the public, while 24 were submitted by fellow councillors, 3 by parish councillors and one by an MP.

Alongside social media issues, there were eight complaints made in connection with comments made at council meetings, five about motions made at meetings and four about not discharging duties correctly.

Other issues that sparked complaints included attire worn at council meetings, alleged bullying, use of political material, comments made in a media interview and general behaviour.

The latest report on the management of complaints was presented to the council's Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday (7 July).

There are 88 cases still ongoing.

Of the 80 concluded cases, 14 were found to be in breach of the Members' Code of Conduct.

But there was no breach found in 66 cases – and names of councillors subject to complaints were not disclosed in the report.

The report said: "Between 2 May 2025 and 30 April 2026, 168 complaints were received against elected members of Staffordshire County Council.

"This represents a significant increase compared with the same period in 2024/25, when 12 complaints were received.

"It is worth highlighting that of the 168 complaints received, 83 related to alleged thematic conduct of a small number of members.

"134 of the complaints related to comments made on social media channels, either by elected members or conversations that have taken place between elected members and constituents.

"Elected members should be mindful of their use of social media, as online comments and interactions are public, permanent, and easily shared beyond their intended audience.

"As visible elected representatives, councillors may be perceived as speaking in an official capacity even when using personal accounts, and posts may therefore attract scrutiny.

"Inappropriate, misleading, dismissive, or poorly judged content can give rise to complaints, including alleged breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct, and may create impressions of bias, disrespect, or a lack of professionalism. Such behaviour has the potential to undermine public trust and confidence in both the individual councillor and the council as a whole."

Monitoring officer Kate Loader told Tuesday's meeting: "It is important to emphasise that the existence of a complaint does not necessarily mean that there has been a breach of the code.

"Each complaint is preliminarily assessed on its own merits and consideration is given to whether there is any evidence of a potential breach and, if so, what action – if any – is proportionate in the circumstances.

"The arrangements previously approved by this committee continue to work well, despite the increase in the volume of complaints that have caused delays within the process.

"Independent persons have been involved throughout the process as required, and where action has been appropriate, there have been mechanisms available to secure resolution, whether through advice, training, apology or – in more serious cases – referral through the committees standards procedures.

"The report and the data available to the committee to date provide assurance that standards of conduct amongst the majority of county councillors remains high.

"The majority of members continue to conduct themselves appropriately and in accordance with the principles that underpin public service.

"We are working to address the backlog.

"And it is notable now there has been a gradual reduction in the amount of complaints being received."

Committee member David Webster asked: "Given the number of complaints that have been made, are there enough resources to investigate them fully?

"There is 88 ongoing and that's what raised the question."

Ms Loader said that administrative changes had been made, which had assisted in "streamlining" some aspects of the investigation process.

She added: "We have needed to bring in additional resource in the form of external investigators.

"Apart from that, with the assistance of an extremely solid team, we have managed to resolve complaints within the existing resource apart from the use of additional investigators.

"That has however resulted in a delay within the process.

"If that delay continues or if the numbers peak again then that is something we may need to review from a resourcing point of view.

"But at the moment, I am hopeful we can bring the reporting mechanisms back within the ideal timescale for a preliminary assessment, which is 28 days."

Cllr Craig Humphreyson said: "I will be interested to see updates when the 88 are done.

"It seems to me, with only 14 (in breach and) with 66 no breach, these complaints (don't have) any merit or substance to them if the vast majority are being disregarded and there's nothing wrong."

Complaints that led to a councillor being found in breach of the Members' Code of Conduct:

• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post from social media, issue an apology in relation to the use of language and attend further Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post from social media, issue an apology in relation to the use of language and attend further Code of Conduct training.
• General behaviour of councillor. Decision: Councillor was asked to issue an apology in relation to their behaviour and undertake additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post from social media and publish a clarification.
• General behaviour of councillor and comments being made on social media. Decision: Complaint considered by the Standards Panel with the breach upheld. Panel recommended that the complaint be upheld and that the panel submit a recommendation to the Member's Group Leader on an appropriate action, the panel publish the findings related to the councillor's conduct, the findings be reported to both the Audit and Standards Committee, the parish council and the third complainant, the panel recommend the removal of the councillor from current committee and outside bodies, the panel recommend the removal of the whip, acknowledging that this decision rests with the leader and the panel recommend that the councillor undergo additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post and undertake additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post and undertake additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post and undertake additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Complaint considered by the Standards Panel with the breach upheld. Panel recommended that the complaint be upheld and that the panel submit a recommendation to the Member's Group Leader on an appropriate action, the panel publish the findings related to the councillor's conduct, the findings be reported to both the Audit and Standards Committee, the parish council and the third complainant, the panel recommend the removal of the councillor from current committee and outside bodies, the panel recommend the removal of the whip, acknowledging that this decision rests with the leader and the panel recommend that the councillor undergo additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comment made at Full Council. Decision: Councillor was asked to make a formal apology at a future council meeting.
• Comments shared on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post and undertake additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was requested to remove the post and publish a clarification.
• Response to post on Facebook. Decision: Councillor was asked to remove the post and undertake additional Code of Conduct training.
• Comments made in Full Council. Decision: Councillor was asked to undertake additional Code of Conduct training.