Elvery’s ex-business partner guilty of financial misconduct

WALTER CONXITE reports on more disturbing news involving “dishonest” conduct around the private business of Croydon Council’s most senior official

The co-director of a private company that was run with Croydon Council’s new chief executive, Nathan Elvery, has been found guilty of financial misconduct and bringing the accountancy profession into disrepute after she admitted to forging her business partner’s signatures on the company accounts.

Croydon CEO Nathan Elvery: never noticed that someone was forging his signature on his private company's accounts

Croydon CEO Nathan Elvery: never noticed that someone was forging his signature on his private company’s accounts

Elvery established Sundragon Associates Ltd in August 2009, even though he was Croydon Council’s full-time deputy CEO and executive director in charge of the borough’s finances at the same time. He formed the private company together with Tracie Evans, who was then the director of finance at Barking and Dagenham. There were no other directors in the business. Sundragon was wound-up in April 2012.

The disciplinary hearing of CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which reported last month, described Evans’ actions in signing the accounts in her business partner’s name as “dishonest”. Elvery gave evidence to the disciplinary panel, claiming no knowledge of the forgeries, something which Evans denied. CIPFA gave Evans a “severe reprimand”.

Last year, when Inside Croydon investigated Elvery’s involvement in his Sundragon private business while a full-time employee at Croydon, he threatened legal action against this website in an unsuccessful effort to gag us.

The council also broke the law over information requests and at first deliberately withheld information about their senior executive’s involvement in his moonlighting activities.

Although Sundragon was set-up to offer consultancy services to local authorities over the use of IT systems, Elvery has always claimed that there was never any conflict of interest with his day job at Croydon. He has also said that he never gained any financial benefits from the company, which in its first year’s trading had a £50,000 turnover.

Last month, Elvery was made full-time chief executive of Croydon Council, a job which was never advertised.

Just days before, at a disciplinary meeting of CIPFA, Elvery’s one-time business partner admitted to forging her co-director’s signature on formal accounts lodged with Companies House. CIPFA published its report on the hearing last month.

CIPFA is the professional body for accountants and others responsible for managing public money in the public sector.

According to CIPFA’s report of the hearing, the offences involved the handling of Sundragon Associates’ company accounts for 2010, in a period from October 2011 through to January 2012.

This suggests that throughout this whole period, the company’s co-founder Elvery was unaware that he had not signed off on his company accounts, nor that there was someone else doing so for him.

It also suggests that Elvery and Evans never discussed the matter of accounting for the company finances through that period, even though it is known that the pair were also working together on a public-funded IT project for London Councils, called “Project Athena”.

Although Evans had Elvery’s mobile phone number, according to her evidence, she never once discussed this matter with him in that 18-month period. “Ms Evans was unable to explain why she did not ask him to sign off the accounts,” the CIPFA report notes.

Perhaps intended to reassure the disciplinary panel, Evans – who is now working as the chief operating officer at Haringey – told the disciplinary hearing that, “… she would never forge signatures in a professional working environment, holding senior public office”. That must be a huge relief to all concerned.

Tracie Evans: worked with Elvery on Programme Athena and their private company Sundragon

Tracie Evans: worked with Elvery on Project Athena and their private company Sundragon

The official CIPFA report of the hearing states:

“Ms Evans admitted the majority of the facts in the case. She stated that she had become frustrated by Sundragon’s accountant whom she said had failed to present accurate accounts for the year ended 31 August 2010 in that they were incorrectly made out for the year ended 31 July 2010. These accounts had not been accepted by Companies House. This led Ms Evans to file amended accounts herself in Oct/Nov 2011 (which were made out to the year ended 31 August 2010 but still contained references to the year ended 31 July 2010) and further amended accounts in November 2011 (for the period 10 to 31 August 2009, the year ended 31 August 2010 and the year ended 31 August 2011). These accounts were then resubmitted by Ms Evans to Companies House in an amended form in January 2012. All of the accounts filed by Ms Evans herself were signed by Ms Evans using the name and purported signature of her co-director without her co-director’s knowledge.

“Ms Evans had her co-director’s mobile telephone details and would have been available to speak to him for at least part of the relevant time if she had chosen to contact him. Ms Evans was unable to explain why she did not ask him to sign off the accounts.

“She indicated that she just wanted the whole issue of Sundragon Associates closed as the company was no longer required and she was busy with other things in her life. Out of expediency she signed the accounts herself. She felt under pressure from Companies House deadlines and wanted to avoid any fine. She admitted that her signing the accounts in her co-director’s name was misleading (although it transpired that only one signature was required) but thought that this would not be questioned by Companies House as the figures were small, were accurate and no one had gained or lost anything as a result of her actions. She admitted that she would never forge signatures in a professional working environment, holding senior public office.

Council Leader Tony Newman and his choice of CEO, Nathan Elvery, share a joke at a council meeting. Elvery is the one with a pen in his hand

Croydon council leader Tony Newman and his choice of CEO, Nathan Elvery, share a joke at a Town Hall meeting. Elvery is the one with a pen in his hand

“Although denied by Ms Evans, the Committee found that she did not have her co- director’s consent to sign his name (his having given evidence to this effect to the Committee) and that her actions were dishonest and liable to mislead in that she had intended that Companies House should rely on the accounts having been signed by two directors which she knew to be false.”

Evans was found guilty of being in breach of CIPFA’s standard of professional practice on ethics “in that she failed to act in accordance with the Fundamental Principle of Integrity”, and “… she was guilty of misconduct in that by her actions she had brought discredit on herself, the Institute and the profession of accountancy”.

Nathan Elvery is paid £180,000 a year as salary by Croydon Council, and next May will be in charge of the management of all the polling booths, security and count of the votes for the borough’s three constituencies at the General Election.


Coming to Croydon

Inside Croydon: Croydon’s only independent news source, based in the heart of the borough: 407,847 page views (Jan-Jun 2014) If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, a residents’ or business association or local event, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email inside.croydon@btinternet.com
This entry was posted in 2015 General Election, Croydon Council, Nathan Elvery, Tony Newman and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Elvery’s ex-business partner guilty of financial misconduct

  1. arnorab says:

    You couldn’t make it up, could you? The resemblance between Elvery and David Brent are getting stronger and stronger but are now enlivened by a little admixture of Del Trotter. An amazing, artificial confection through which our current Leaders seem unable to see.

  2. derekthrower says:

    I wish you had a something of significance, but it looks like Natty Boy has acted ethically in this case. Why haven’t you reported about what has happened to Trace and her senior management role at Haringey?

    • Are you sure?

      A director of a private company, which may or may not have been cleared with his employers in the first place. Croydon Council is very quiet about this, so it is probably fair to assume not.

      Only one other director.

      Yet for almost two years, this director did not sign off on any company accounts.

      Did the point really not occur to him, as Elvery told the disciplinary hearing? Or did he and his co-director never speak on company business for nearly two years?

      The ruling that says he knew nothing about the forgeries suggests that Elvery was grossly incompetent. Couldn’t be trusted to run a small company, never mind a vast local authority…

      As for Evans, her local authority colleagues in Haringey are entirely content with her dishonest conduct.

      A pattern emerging, perhaps?

  3. derekthrower says:

    You can interpret it as you like, but you have put a story together using circumstance rather than any real clear evidence. Who would have reported the forgeries? Sometimes restraint and equivocation over somebody actions is a wiser path to tread.

    • The “real, clear evidence”, Derek is in the activities of Croydon’s CEO in running a private company – which he has admitted – and contained within the disciplinary tribunal report of the CIPFA hearing.

      Either Elvery knew about the forgeries, or he didn’t. Neither outcome shows him in a particularly kind light.

  4. derekthrower says:

    There is no regulation that prevented him from running a private company that has no involvement with the local authority he is associated with. You have not provided a full chronology of what he was doing when the company was set up and the duration of it’s activities. It appears that this is an issue about winding up a dormant company and he was not consulted correctly. This is good background information, but you have put a spin on it because it involves Elvery and still not reported what punishment did Evans receive from the professional body.

    • The chronology of Elvery’s misconduct in the matter of Sundragon is recounted, at length, elsewhere on this site, and the links to the relevant articles are included within the piece above.

      Under Elvery’s contract of employment and the council’s code of conduct, he is indeed restrained in terms of his extra-mural activities.

      Sundragon was not dormant in 2010-2011, when Elvery was still active in Programme Athena and the company had just enjoyed a turnover of £50,000.

      And also as is reported above, Evans received a “severe reprimand”.

Leave a Reply