ANGRY villagers packed out a public meeting on Wednesday night amid concerns householders will have to foot a parish council's £37,000 bill from auditors.

Potto Parish Council, which raises an annual precept of £7,000, has been charged £37,000 by national firm PKF Littlejohn for audits covering a five-year period.

The council, in the small village between Northallerton and Stokesley, says the bill is so large because of repeated challenges to its annual governance and accountability return by a single resident.

Wednesday night's meeting, held at Potto Village Hall as a thunderstorm raged outside, was attended by more than 70 residents, who were told by parish council chairman Andy Wilde that 366 complaints about the authority had been raised by the individual.

PKF, which has the national contract for auditing small authorities, issued a Public Interest Report (PIR) upholding some objections. Recommended actions include issues such as the minuting of the adoption of standing orders, improving records of its handling of correspondence, explicitly approving all payments made and undertaking a review of its arrangements for handling Freedom of Information requests.

Cllr Wilde said in anticipation of a significant charge for PKF's work, the council had set aside approximately £10,000over recent years, but members were shocked to receive the £37,000 bill. When the savings were taken into account, the bill could mean an additional £150 to pay for each household in Potto, he said.

"We don't think we should have to pay this," said Cllr Wilde. "We don't think that the people of Potto should have to pay this. We don't think that the PIR should have happened."

Cllr Wilde outlined the actions taken in response to the report, supported by Yorkshire Local Councils Association, but said the council is preparing to appeal to PKF over its handling of the case. He said if that was not successful, the next step would be to involve the National Audit Office.

One resident asked: "How can it be possible that something is investigated from one person putting in all these complaints? If complaints were coming in from all different sources, I can see that."

Another resident asked why, given the size of Potto Parish Council, it felt it necessary to have external auditors. Cllr Wilde said: "We believe that improves our processes."

Questions were also asked about why the report period covered five years. Cllr Wilde said this was in part due to Covid, but added: "This has been brought about by the auditor. We don't have any control over that."

Other residents criticised the individual making the complaints, who was not named at the meeting. One person said: "The big problem you are facing is something quite important because these vexatious complaints will happen. The powers the parish council has (for dealing with that) are very, very limited."

Another speaker suggested the final option would be for councillors to resign in protest, but Cllr Ian MacPherson said: "Why should I resign? I am going to stand my ground because we are making a difference in this parish, we try our level best."

Other residents questioned who audits the auditors' practice, and whether the individual's repeated complaints constituted harassment.

Regarding the potential £150 per household bill, Cllr Wilde said the council was hoping its appeal would mean this would not have to be paid, but if it is, the sum would likely be spread over several years for residents.

However one said: "I absolutely refuse to pay that £150 and I hope everyone in the room agrees with me."

As the meeting closed, residents started putting together a petition to send to Richmond MP Rishi Sunak, to ask for his support in challenging PKF, and raising awareness about the difficulties faced by small councils when receiving complaints of this nature.

Cllr Wilde said the council will now submit its action plan to PKF, and if agreed, Potto will then look to appeal to the firm.