A MOVE to stop an unpopular litter enforcement company from handing out fines was rejected behind closed doors, it has been revealed.

Wrexham Council’s executive board has decided not to adopt a Plaid Cymru motion to suspend the authority’s contract with Kingdom Services with immediate effect.

The proposal was due to be heard in public at a meeting earlier this week, but there was uproar after leading councillors voted to exclude members of the press and public.

However, the board’s decision to continue using the firm was revealed in the minutes of Tuesday’s meeting as they chose not to adopt the motion.

Plaid Cymru group leader Marc Jones described their choice as 'disappointing'.

He said: "We're disappointed that the executive board didn't consider the motion as we raised serious concerns about the financial and reputational risk the council faces in continuing with the Kingdom contract.

"I can't go into detail about the way the matter was considered behind closed doors, but it sums it up that leading councillors on the board had already tabled a motion to reject our proposal before they'd heard the arguments.

"If the executive board want to continue with this damaging policy then we will have to try to find other ways to make them see sense."

This week it was announced that cabinet members in neighbouring Flintshire will be asked to end their contract with Kingdom when it runs out in December.

It comes after Cllr Carolyn Thomas, Flintshire Council's cabinet member for Streetscene and countryside, said the company's approach to handing out fixed penalty notices was undermining the reputation of both organisations.

Similar concerns have been raised in Wrexham, particularly around fines being given to vulnerable residents.

During Tuesday's executive meeting Cllr Jones said the contract was of 'intense public interest' and asked for the debate to be held in open proceedings.

However, Wrexham Council's head of corporate and customer services, Sioned Wyn Jones said that disclosing details of the contract in public would put companies off working with the authority.

Her view was supported by a unanimous vote in favour of hearing the motion in private, where board members ultimately decided to reject it.