Reform leader cites death threats over redacted interests register

Reform UK Cambridgeshire leader Ryan Coogan has claimed he faces “credible” threats to his life and has defended the withholding of key details from his public register of interests, saying disclosure could put both him and his family at risk.

The extraordinary comments emerged after Coogan launched a public attack on fellow Huntingdonshire councillor Richard Tomlinson, questioning whether the Conservative politician should remain in office because of the Companies House history of a company he owns. But as scrutiny intensified around Tomlinson, questions were also directed at Coogan himself – prompting revelations about alleged death threats, redacted council records and an £805,000 increase in assets held by a company under his control.

Coogan cites threats to explain redactions

Questions about the matter intensified when Coogan was asked why Huntingdonshire District Council’s public register of interests lists several key categories as “redacted”.

The register, published by the council, does not publicly disclose details of Coogan’s employment or business interests, land and property interests or unpaid directorships. Instead, each category is marked “Redacted (HDC Democratic Services aware)”.

Asked why those details were withheld, Coogan cited what he described as years of intimidation and threats directed at him and his family. “As you probably know I receive death threats and many other threats to me and more recently my family,” he said. “My safety and the safety of my family are more important to me than anything else.”

Coogan said he believed much of the hostility was politically motivated and linked to his growing profile within Reform UK. He also claimed police responses had been inadequate despite what he described as credible threats.

“The police have been next to useless, with confirmed credible threats on my life being met with ‘leave the area for a while’ responses from the police,” he said. Coogan further alleged that assaults against him and members of his protection staff had not resulted in action being taken against those responsible.

“Other ABH on my protection staff or assaults on my person have been met with ‘no further action’ even when I have painstakingly found out who the perpetrators are and done the police work for them. Although granted one assault on myself even I couldn’t find out who they were. The police could have. But chose not to.”

He added: “I have therefore become more and more wary of the information I provide in the public arena as it only takes one nut case to cause serious damage or indeed take my life.”

The comments provide the first public explanation from Coogan as to why significant sections of his register of interests are unavailable for public inspection. Council guidance permits certain details to be withheld from public registers if disclosure could expose councillors or connected persons to violence or intimidation. In such cases, the information remains available to the council’s monitoring officer while being withheld from public publication.

The dispute began with scrutiny of Tomlinson

Coogan’s explanation emerged only after he had sought to place another councillor’s private business affairs under the spotlight. Days earlier, the Reform politician had published a lengthy social media post targeting Conservative councillor Richard Tomlinson and questioning whether he remained fit to hold public office.

The post focused on Companies House records relating to KAASPI Limited, a consulting company of which Tomlinson is the sole director and shareholder. Coogan highlighted the fact that the company had been subject to strike-off proceedings on more than one occasion and had been dissolved before later being restored. He argued that residents were entitled to question whether such a record reflected the standards expected of an elected representative.

Among the questions he posed were why the company had faced compulsory strike-off action more than once, why it had been dissolved in November 2024 before being restored, and whether those events raised concerns about competence and judgement.

Coogan also described Tomlinson’s position as becoming “untenable” and suggested there could be grounds for a police investigation. No evidence was provided to support allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Tomlinson rejects allegations

Given an opportunity to respond, Tomlinson firmly rejected Coogan’s characterisation and denied there had been any wrongdoing.

“I do not intend to get into a personal back-and-forth with Cllr Coogan,” he said. “The Companies House record is public, and I am not troubled by legitimate scrutiny of public records. However, I do reject any suggestion of wrongdoing, police involvement, or that this has any bearing on my suitability for public office.”

Tomlinson said KAASPI Limited was incorporated in 2020 as a consulting company and that he remains its sole director and shareholder. According to Tomlinson, the company later became dormant while he focused on other work, and he expected it eventually to close.

He said the 2024 strike-off proceedings occurred because required filings were not kept up to date while the company was dormant. Companies House records show the company was dissolved through compulsory strike-off on 19 November 2024 before later being restored.

Tomlinson said he subsequently restored the company through the proper administrative process after deciding to resume consulting activities.

“The public-record facts are straightforward,” he said. “KAASPI had been dormant, I had expected it to close, I later decided to resume consulting, restored the company through the proper Companies House process, and brought the filings up to date.”

Addressing the earlier 2021 strike-off notice, Tomlinson said it arose shortly after incorporation and was resolved once the relevant filings had been completed.

‘No police involvement, no wrongdoing’

Tomlinson also strongly rejected any suggestion that the company history involved financial misconduct or regulatory action. “This was a private company administration matter,” he said. “It involved no council business, no public money, no council contract, no insolvency, no police involvement, and no finding or evidence of wrongdoing.”

He added that there had been no creditor issues, tax disputes, insolvency proceedings or enforcement action by HMRC, police or other regulatory bodies.

Tomlinson also rejected Coogan’s assertion that the issue reflected on his ability to serve as a councillor. “I reject Cllr Coogan’s characterisation that my position as a councillor is ‘untenable’. There is no basis for that claim. I also reject the suggestion that this raises concerns about my competence or suitability for public office.”

Tomlinson confirmed he had not been contacted by police or any law-enforcement agency regarding the company and said he had received no contact from Coogan before or after publication of the social media post.

Questions turn to Coogan’s own business interests

As attention shifted towards Coogan, questions were raised about Coogan Holdings Limited, a company for which he is listed as the sole director.

Accounts filed at Companies House show the company reported fixed assets of £805,000 in the year ending September 2024, compared with £190,000 a year earlier. The accounts also show net assets increasing from £1,250 to £595,272 over the same period. The company is classified under the business category “other letting and operating of own or leased real estate”.

However, because it files micro-entity accounts, the nature of the assets is not publicly disclosed. Questions were put to Coogan regarding the composition of the £805,000 in fixed assets and whether those assets related to property holdings within or outside Huntingdonshire. Coogan did not directly answer those questions. Instead, he focused on the security concerns that he said lay behind the redactions on his register of interests.

Companies House records also show Coogan has previously held directorships in a number of companies that are now dissolved.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing arising from those records.

NOTE: Coogan, after unsuccessfully contesting the 2025 Cambridgeshire mayoral election (he came second) and the 2024 general election in East Cambridgeshire (he came fourth), was elected to Huntingdonshire District Council last month.

Following his 2026 election, Cambridgeshire Police investigated an allegation of false statements on Coogan’s candidate nomination papers. The investigation is ongoing.

This article is republished with kind permission of CambsNews. Read the original here.