Two leading councillors are facing claims they should have declared stakes in businesses they own following what one has branded a “politically motivated” and “spurious” complaint.

Canterbury City Council has launched an investigation after receiving an anonymous email about its deputy leader, Michael Dixey, and cabinet member for transport, Alex Ricketts.

It centres on claims the Lib Dem pair have not fully disclosed their financial and business interests, as well as those of their wives - a potential criminal offence under the Localism Act of 2011.

Neither has sought to conceal their links to the firms, which are registered in their names and of which they have publicly disclosed themselves to be directors.

But questions have been raised over whether they should have declared their securities - in this case, the shares they hold - in the companies.

Cllr Dixey, who has sat on the city council since 1987, told KentOnline he believes the complaint is “politically motivated” and “splitting hairs”, while Cllr Ricketts says he has “nothing to hide”.

The law states that, to avoid potential conflicts, a councillor should disclose if they, or a spouse, own at least 1% of shares in a company with land or a place of business in the council’s area - in this instance the Canterbury district.

Cllr Dixey is accused of failing to declare his 100% ownership of consultancy firm GGR Associates Ltd, which is based at Linden House in Linden Grove, Canterbury.

The shareholding does not appear on Cllr Dixey’s register of interests under the relevant “securities” section, but the chartered engineer has disclosed his directorship of the firm under “employment”.

“The words ‘splitting hairs’ come to mind,” the Westgate representative told KentOnline.

The city council’s legal chief - known as a monitoring officer - will also look at claims Cllr Dixey should not have listed his wife, Margaret, as “retired” when Companies House records show she is the company secretary of GGR Associates Ltd.

“This role takes less than one hour per year!” Cllr Dixey said in response.

“As you will see from our website, www.ggrassociates.co.uk, we are a small niche consultancy working in the manufacturing sector. We do not and have never done any work in the public sector.

“This seems a totally spurious complaint. I have asked our head of legal to look into these accusations.

“The complaint is anonymous - so I expect it is politically motivated.”

The accusations against Cllr Ricketts centre on his ownership of two separate businesses he has declared his directorship of, but not the shares he holds.

The first is management consultancy Alex Ricketts Ltd, which Companies House documents show he is the sole stakeholder in.

It is registered to the office of an accountancy firm - a standard practice with many companies - in Eastleigh, near Southampton.

The second is PR and marketing firm Wake Up and Smell the Copy Ltd, for which Cllr Rocketts is listed as a “marketing manager” and 50% stakeholder.

It is registered to an office in 20-22 Wenlock Road, London, with Cllr Ricketts seemingly making use of a “registered office service” that allows business owners to use an address different to their own.

Its LinkedIn page describes itself as “virtual” and there is no office address on its website, suggesting the firm has no physical headquarters.

The anonymous complainant argues that should any of the work for either of Cllr Ricketts’ companies be carried out at his home in Canterbury, it would constitute the property being a “place of business” in the district, therefore requiring a declaration of his securities.

For the same reasons, questions have also been asked about whether Cllr Ricketts should have declared his wife’s ownership of a company called Katie Hilton Ltd.

Companies House shows Katie Ricketts is the only shareholder of the business, which is registered to the same Eastleigh address as Alex Ricketts Ltd.

Described as a “business psychologist”, Mrs Ricketts - who changed her surname on Companies House from Hilton in February - runs a website called katiehiltoncoaching.com, which does not carry a contact address.

The complainant again argues that should any of her work take place at the couple’s home then it should be considered a “place of business” in the district, requiring Cllr Ricketts to declare her shareholding and not just her directorship, as he has.

When approached by KentOnline, Cllr Ricketts, who represents Blean Forest, said: “I won’t be commenting in detail at this time, as the matter is now being considered by the city council’s monitoring officer.

“I have nothing to hide and will cooperate fully with the process, and believe strongly in being open and transparent.”

This promise of transparency was made by the Lib Dem group as a whole last summer amid questions being asked over the inclusion of a former Conservative councillor’s land in the authority’s draft Local Plan.

An audit review later found no fault or improper behaviour in the process that saw the home of Louise Jones-Roberts and her husband Matthew earmarked for a new housing estate by council planning officers.

But in a statement released last August, after the saga made national headlines, Canterbury’s Lib Dems said: “We as elected councillors wish to let those who put us here know that things have changed.

“This means we will pursue more openness and honesty, as has been our commitment throughout the previous election campaign.

“We welcome rather than fear scrutiny.”

A spokesman for CCC says the accusations against Cllr Dixey and Cll Ricketts are being investigated by its monitoring officer, who is responsible for overseeing complaints about councillor conduct.

“We have received a complaint relating to declarations of interests,” he said.

“This is being investigated by the appropriate senior officer, in line with our policy on complaints of this nature.”