Having lost income from a comment made at a parish council meeting - who is responsible for this [closed]

Question

I have lost income from a comment that a member of the public made at a parish council meeting and then a councillor referred to the same issue - it was factually incorrect and then minuted, I referred the issue to the monitoring officer and the parish council, I was told that it was not a matter for the monitoring officer or parish council to resolve but should refer it to the police - is this correct advice please as I don't think the police will be interested in my loss of income, however I am unsure around the parish council's responsibility for parish councillor or public comments.

Answer 1

Just search "defamation" online and do some research - there is a mass of info which only you can assess against your own particular circumstances.

There are two different types of civil claims for defamation: 

• libel - which relates to the publication of a statement in permanent form, such as in writing, but also includes broadcasts or stage productions;
• slander - which relates to the transient publication of a statement, such as by way of speech, but also includes gestures or conduct.

What does a claimant need to show?

A claimant needs to show that the statement complained of:

• is defamatory, meaning that an ordinary person would think worse of the claimant as a result of the statement;
• identifies or refers to them, and
• is published to a third party.

As defamation is a tort of strict liability, there is no need for the claimant to establish that the defendant had an intention to defame.

Since the introduction of the 2013 Defamation Act, (DA 2013), which came into force on 1 January 2014, claimants must now also demonstrate that the publication of the statement caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. In the case of bodies trading for profit, the serious harm to its reputation needs to have caused, or be likely to cause, serious financial loss.

This is a good starting point: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_def  

You will probably need to put some cash into it if you decide to go past the pre-action 'letter of claim' stage but if you read the protocol, it will give you a good sense of what is required and provide you the framework to make your decision if you believe your claim has legs and that you wish to proceed.  

Comments

Reading your further comments below...

Anyone can express their 'honestly held opinion' (especially in a planning situation where public opinion is actively facilitated.)
Probably best to read the Defamation Act and the pre-action protocol and make the decision yourself whether you wish to take an action.

---

It is neither for the MO (since accepting the minutes is an act of the PC not an individual) and neither is it an action for the police.  It is a civil matter which is yours alone to progress.

Answer 2

I’m sorry but I don’t understand this.

Comments

At a parish council meeting a member of the public commented on my planning application and said (as per the minutes) "A Member of the Public expressed his concerns about the proposed xxxxxxxx saying that he was concerned about the flooding issues. He referred to recent storms recalling that xxxxxxx Rd had flooded, that water in neighbouring areas had been up to 1.5m deep and xxxxxxxxxx had nearly flooded. He described the proposed development as un-needed and said it wilt reduce the size of the flood catchments and create a partial dam which will further raise the risk of flooding."
This is factually incorrect (& the parish council know this). The planning application site is currently a Livery yard and  because of this comment I got a cancellation for livery services as the client was concerned around the safety of their horses.
I lost income because of this comment. The monitoring officer has said this is a matter for the police to resolve.

---

If your client was local enough to be attending/reading minutes of a Parish Council meeting then surely they are local enough to have a good idea themselves of the flooding history of your field. I find it hard to believe you have genuinely lost money because of this.

If you are upset that this members comments may affect you being granted planning permission, be aware that a PC have no powers to decide on planning applications.

Answer 3

Sticky wicket for defending such a proposed claim.
It was at a planning meeting where no doubt opinions were called for ( hence minutes) Whether the opinions expressed were factual or accurate are for the planning department to decide and the MO is correct that there appears to have been no breaching of code of conduct.

Now if one of your customers felt that their horses were at risk when liveried on your premises when it was raining it is a decision that THEY have made ( rightly or wrongly).

Part of your job as a business person is to give customers faith in the safety of your business and you should be spending time re-assuring them that their animals are not at risk when on your premises not fanning the flames of publicity than could do untold damage. Let it go don't open what could be a can of worms.

Answer 4

If you read the case of Horrocks vs Lowe, the judgement was

‘MEMBERS OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS FREELY ON A MATTER OF INTEREST IN THE LOCALITY. SO LONG AS THEY HONESTLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY TO BE TRUE, THEY ARE NOT TO BE MADE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION.  THEY MAY BE PREJUDICED AND UNREASONABLE. THEY MAY NOT GET THEIR FACTS RIGHT. THEY MAY GIVE MUCH OFFENCE TO OTHERS. BUT SO LONG AS THEY ARE HONEST, THEY GO CLEAR.’ 

So as long as they believed to be true what they said about the flooding then there is no defamation even if it is not true.