A Liberal Democrat councillor in Salford says he will resign after winning a second seat in the Cotswolds thanks to a loophole in electoral law. Chris Twells, who won a seat on Salford council last year in the Ordsall ward, stood as what his own party insisted was a “paper candidate” in the Cotswolds – and confounded expectations by winning. Paul Dennett, the Labour mayor of Salford, had called on Twells to “do the right thing” and give up his seat in Salford after winning the second one 160 miles away. After his latest surprise victory, Twells told his local paper (the Cotswolds one) that he would resign to concentrate on Cotswold council, which is Liberal Democrat-controlled. He told the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard: “I will be taking some time off over the weekend and speaking to the chief executive of Salford city council after the bank holiday weekend to establish what action I need to take to resign as a councillor, to allow for a byelection to be held in my ward.” It is legal for someone to be a councillor for two different local authorities, as long as they do not lie on the nomination forms when they stand for election about where they live. To become a councillor, candidates must be registered to vote in the area or have lived, worked or owned property there for at least 12 months before an election. Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, has written to Michael Gove, the communities secretary, urging him to close what she called a “bizarre loophole”. In the run-up to the election, Alex Warren, the leader of the Lib Dems in Salford, defended Twells’ candidacy in the Cotswolds, saying he had no hope of victory. “His name is on the ballot paper as a paper candidacy because the Lib Dems were struggling to fill their slate. He will not win,” he assured the Manchester Evening News. But win he did, taking 38% of the vote in the Tetbury with Upton ward, ousting a Conservative. The Liberal Democrats retained control of Cotswold district council, winning four Tory seats, including Twells’ new ward. Dennett had raised concerns about Twells moonlighting in the Cotswolds before the election, only for Warren to say: “If Paul [Dennett] doesn’t understand that it’s a technicality, and perfectly legal, that’s his problem. As far as I am concerned this is much ado about nothing. Chris still lives in Salford and is still carrying out casework for local residents. He put a lot of work in and deserved to win his seat in Ordsall.” In an open letter to Twells posted on Twitter before the poll, Dennett claimed that Twells was registered as a Salford resident in Salford Quays ward, and was the election agent for most of the Lib Dem councillors in the Cotswolds up for election this time around. Dennett alleged that it was “particularly egregious” for Twells to stand in the Cotswolds having won in Salford after billing himself as a “local candidate”. He beat the Labour incumbent, “lifetime resident John Walsh, on the basis that he lived six miles away in Irlam”, Dennett said, adding: “Tetbury is, as I’m sure you are aware, 160 miles away.” Salford Labour claims Twells has attended four out of 13 full Salford council meetings in the last year. The practice of fielding “paper candidates” in ostensibly hopeless seats carries well-known risks. In 1997, Stephen Twigg was flabbergasted to beat Michael Portillo in Enfield Southgate, having agreed to stand for Labour largely on the basis that he would never win and could keep his job as general secretary of the Fabian Society. Candidates who give a false address on their nomination papers to make them appear more local can face criminal prosecution. This week the Labour leader of Warrington council, Russell Bowden, was cleared by a jury of making a false statement in his nomination papers after accusations that he had used his estranged wife’s address to appear more local. A Lib Dem spokesperson said: “Liberal Democrats are proud of our stunning wins today across the blue wall that have seen countless candidates elected, including some who never expected to win. We are aware a complaint has been made regarding this particular case, which will be considered by the party’s independent complaints process.”