THERE'S no doubt retired businessman Bernard Borman can cut an imposing figure. Tall and well-spoken, the self-styled local government expert is intelligent and articulate.

When required, he can adopt the terminology of a lawyer and, since arriving in Wensleydale in North Yorkshire ten years ago, he freely admits he has championed a number of causes, some his own and some on behalf of others.

He has won allies as a result, not least on the Brentwood Residents Association, which he helped to found to represent the views of those in the Leyburn street where he lives.

He writes for outspoken Catterick councillor Tony Pelton's monthly news sheet, The Clarion, which has sailed close to the wind in the past in its criticism of the local council.

He is a member of the newly-formed Richmondshire Association of Council Tax Payers - an organisation formed among others unhappy with Richmondshire District Council's performance. The association is considering fielding candidates at the next local government election.

Mr Borman insists he is not a politician and remains a private citizen, albeit with a strong sense of public duty.

Nevertheless, since 1994, Richmondshire District Council claims it has faced 20 separate inquiries by the Local Government Ombudsman, two court actions, held ten internal inquiries, and co-operated with a number of investigations by the District Auditor - all as a result of Mr Borman's complaints and inquiries.

None have yet resulted in any formal action being taken against the authority but, using an independently-approved method of audit, the council estimates the cost of dealing with these complaints and inquiries to be in the region of £125,000.

The district council's file on Mr Borman, who calls himself Bernard Borman-Schreiber von Ullersdorf, an inherited title he claims dates back to 1498 and the Holy Roman Empire, includes 1,034 separate documents, both complaints and the authority's responses.

Complaints include allegations of Freemasonry links between officials and councillors, maladministration in the sale of Thornborough Hall to Leyburn Town Council, claims that the district council is being run by a Liverpudlian mafia, and personal accusations against Mr Tabiner.

In 1998, senior officers appealed to Mr Borman to moderate the volume of his correspondence and, when releasing the new figures this week, the council's management team indicated a hope there would be fewer letters in future.

That hope may prove to be forlorn. Mr Borman insists he is not responsible for the costs, claiming the figures were released to the media in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the public.

Yesterday, he filed a fresh complaint to the London-based Standards Board, alleging that, in supplying details of the cost of correspondence at the request of The Northern Echo, Richmondshire District Council has denied him his right to a private life under the Human Rights Act and breached regulations relating to confidentiality under the 1992 Local Government Act.

He writes: "Rudeness and abuse by certain members of staff have not been dealt with and my access to the complaints procedure has so far been unsuccessful, except on one occasion when the person concerned was reprimanded. With this kind of attitude, by people in official positions who are supposed to serve the public instead of antagonising them, these matters become matters of principle."

In a bitter exchange of faxes earlier this month, he accused council chief executive Harry Tabiner of a "smear campaign" - only to be told in reply he was widely regarded as "a buffoon".

The feud was due to continue at a council meeting last night, with Mr Borman tabling a public question appealing to the council to consider sacking Mr Tabiner for his remarks. He subsequently received notification that his request had been rejected by the authority's monitoring officer, who can strike off public questions if the content is considered defamatory, frivolous or offensive.

"This is a classic example of how Richmondshire District Council claims to have democratic procedures but, when it comes to using them, they take every opportunity to stifle opinion and public debate," argues Mr Borman.

The council is equally adamant it has to adhere rigidly to accepted procedure when dealing with complaints and inquiries - no matter who they are from.

"The council's position has always been that we cannot stop communicating with a resident and we will continue to communicate with Mr Borman," says council leader John Blackie. "However, while defending the rights of the individual is vital to democracy, there comes a time when you have to question the motives, especially when you are dealing with someone as vexatious as Mr Borman.

"If one individual is allowed to monopolise the complaints procedure, there is also a risk that officers may not have time to deal with other matters raised by members of the community who have an equal right to be heard."

To those with no grievances at all, it may even seem faintly ridiculous that one individual should devote so much time and effort bombarding a council with correspondence; others who have been victims of poor service will perhaps sympathise.

But then there are wider arguments too - arguments over whether there should be a limit on the right to hold public bodies to account. Yesterday, The Northern Echo revealed that a single individual's democratic right to question decisions made by local government cost an estimated £15,000 a year.

It may sound a lot of money to spend with very little to show for it, but if those paying tax do not have the right to question how their money is being spent, then what sort of control do we have over our public servants? It may mean higher bills for the rest of us, but is that the price you have to pay for democracy?