An independent review, which cost council almost $10,000, found Cr Neville had not breached any council codes or misrepresented the use of the vehicle.

The investigation resulted from a written complaint from local man Lance Perry, who claimed the former mayor had been dishonest in his vehicle log book. 

Griffith City Council requires its mayor to keep a log of travel for 12 weeks during his first year of tenure and present it as an official document.

The proportion of private and official use demonstrated in the log book is used to determine whether the mayor will be paid the full vehicle allowance of $15,000 per year.

Upon examining documentation provided by Cr Neville and the company that serviced his car, sole reviewer Gerry Holmes ruled there was no evidence to support the complaint and recommended council dismiss it.

At Tuesday's public meeting, the recommendation was upheld. Mr Perry announced he would "go to stage three", indicating he would continue to pursue the complaint.

"It's threats like this that are costing council thousands of dollars," Cr Doug Curran said.

"It's not only council time being spent on this, it's the money we're paying to external reviewers. This series of complaints from Mr Perry is becoming vexatious."

Mr Perry has pursued a series of code of conduct complaints against councillors in the past few years, including one against Cr Neville and Cr Curran last year for publicly questioning the legitimacy of his organisation, Griffith Community Development Council (GCDC).

"This situation could have been resolved at no cost if arrogance had not diminished wisdom," Mr Perry read from a written statement at Tuesday's meeting. 

"Griffith City Council has always gone to the sole reviewer option when there are other avenues ... the sole reviewer will always find in favour of council or councillors (because they are) appointed and paid by council."

Mr Perry had attempted to resolve his complaint by asking Cr Neville last year to provide his original hand-written log book but Cr Neville refused, saying it contained private information and, as the car was not a council-owned vehicle, he was not obliged to do so.

He did, however, show the document to Mr Holmes.

Cr Neville said he was disappointed the exercise had cost ratepayers money because Mr Perry was "hell-bent on getting a result in his favour".

"This could have been resolved had he (Mr Perry) accepted there was certain confidential information I couldn't give him in relation to my personal vehicle," Cr Neville said.