For the tiny village of Weasenham, it was a political scandal worthy of Westminster.

The hamlet is home to just 150 people with a parish council of only six members.

When all six resigned en masse at a meeting last year, it created a drama that is still being played out 10 months on.

Now, an official report has been published into the affair raising hopes that the village's troubles may soon mend.

The six councillors and clerk decided to resign after being deluged with a series of complaints all from the same villager.

Fakenham & Wells Times: District councillors Roger Atterwill, Mark Kiddle-Morris and Robert Hambidge have been appointed to form a temporary parish council in WeasenhamDistrict councillors Roger Atterwill, Mark Kiddle-Morris and Robert Hambidge have been appointed to form a temporary parish council in Weasenham (Image: Archant/Breckland Council/Norfolk Conservatives)

The tipping point came with the council's accounts for 2021-2022, which attracted a total of 31 complaints from the individual, whom the councillors considered a 'persistent complainer'.

Last May, the group said they had reached the end of their tether and quit - citing the need to protect their health.

In their place, three members of Breckland Council - the local district council - were 'parachuted' in to run things, led by Roger Atterwill.

They have since been working with the council's auditors, PKF Littlejohn, to investigate the 31 complaints.

The new council has now said it agrees with 27, with the other four requiring no further action.

Among the issues highlighted by the auditors in a report were that:

  • invoices for new fencing in the village were addressed to an individual councillor and not the council
  • decisions were apparently approved by round-robin emails rather than in formal meetings and not all the emails could be found 
  • some payments for things like grasscutting, and mileage were made without supporting documentation.

Fakenham & Wells Times: Independent councillor, Roger AtterwillIndependent councillor, Roger Atterwill (Image: Archant)

Because crucial meetings were not held last year, the council has also been told it must pay almost £3,000 to amend and resubmit important documents to auditors.

Mr Atterwill thanked the villager - who is not named in the report - for "his courtesy and assistance to us in trying to resolve the matters he raised and subsequently minimise the financial impact on the village.”

He said he hoped that the report would draw a line under the affair and allow a new parish council to take office later this year.

"We have been greatly heartened in recent months to see some lovely community spirit with many residents volunteering to help restore the village pond and a local landowner volunteering to cut all of the hedges around the recreation ground," he said.

"We need to nurture this spirit to heal the wounds in this community and move it forward for everyone’s benefit.

"Weasenham is a lovely parish, and it has been my sincere honour to be its parish council chairman."

READ MORE: Norfolk village campaign recovers from council walk-out

A spokesman for the previous parish council said the accounts in question had been completed correctly and that offers from previous councillors to help resolve outstanding issues had not been taken up.

He added: "The annual financial return for the period ending March 2022 had been completed and submitted to the external auditors in May 2022 after it had been reviewed and signed off by the independent internal auditor.

“However, the new parish council chose to rewrite and resubmit their own return without any discussion with the previous regime.

“The revised return called into question some aspects of financial management by the previous council.

"However, the revised return was not shared, discussed or communicated with former councillors before submission and no detail supporting the changed assertions has ever been made available.

“Despite offers of help, and the assumption that they would work closely with the new council to ensure a smooth transfer, no offers of assistance were accepted and no details of decision-making processes revealed.”