Croydon Council has begun legal proceedings against a UKIP-dominated group which has refused to return thousands of pounds in an unspent grant. Council officials have decided to pursue the group’s committee members for the costs incurred for recovering that money.
Elizabeth Ash at a CCC meeting. She will have to pay the council’s legal costs
According to a senior source at Fisher’s Folly, the chief executive, Nathan Elvery, is determined that Croydon Communities [sic] Consortium will receive no support from council officials “now or in the future”.
A £5,000 council grant was made to CCC in 2013.
Embroiled in a racism row involving one of its officers in 2014, since then CCC – dubbed the Croham Clux Clan by Inside Croydon‘s loyal reader – it has had leading positions taken over by UKIP members and supporters.
These included Peter Staveley, who was CCC’s deputy chair in 2014-2015 when a UKIP election candidate, and Coulsdon resident Janet Stollery, who was recently installed as CCC’s secretary.
The chairwoman of CCC, Elizabeth Ash, recently claimed that she held a letter from the council which showed that the term of the grant was for two years. Challenged to publish this document, Ash has failed to do so.
Now, she could face a four-figure legal bill from the council’s legal department for stubbornly refusing to return the public money since it was requested by Town Hall officials nearly a year ago.
Those involved with CCC, who have organised its political hustings, such as Peter Morgan, who was recently expelled from UKIP, or who have regularly attended its meetings, such as Kathleen Garner, the UKIP candidate in Croydon South in the General Election, and leading Croydon Tory Anne Piles, seem likely to escape any financial charges, leaving CCC committee officials to pick up the tab for their intransigence.
Nathan Elvery: determined to get legal costs and council grant paid
Today, a Croydon councillor told Inside Croydon, “The council CEO is very determined about this. They’ve left us little option.
“The legal costs can be regarded as a tax on stubbornness and stupidity.
“The grant was made for a one-year period. We asked for the unspent element of it to be returned at the end of the term, last December, and CCC’s officers have filibustered, prevaricated and refused to hand back the public money.Maybe they thought they were being clever. They were not.
“Legal action has now commenced against the CCC, but there’s no reason why Croydon’s Council Tax-payers should have to meet the costs of that, so we will be seeking to charge the costs to those CCC committee members responsible.”
- Ash to ashes: Unions boycott UKIP-dominated talking shop
- Council CEO: @Time for debate is over. Give us our cash back’
- ‘Agitators’ to ask CCC: ‘Where’s the council money gone?’
- Inside Croydon Events: for dates and links to what’s happening in and around Croydon, updated daily, click here
-
Inside Croydon: Named among best regional media campaigns, 2014.
- Croydon’s only independent news source, based in the heart of the borough: 729,297 page views in 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
Loads of name dropping in this article, but what it fails to establish is what or why the grant was issued in the first place. We know that Croydon’s Council is on the verge of going bust and “Tony Binman” and his crew will tax anything that moves, but this drop in the ocean is surely just political diatribe without real substance.
You need to be better read. We’ve explained what the grant was made for several times in the past, all of which are linked to in this post.
The grant was for one year. The money granted was not spent. Therefore, it was supposed to be returned.
All other interpretations by you David are, as usual, baseless and the product of your ill-informed imagination.
I’m sorry I don’t read every article you publish. Yet you still fail to tell me in your reply what that grant, spent or unspent, was for. As I am obviously misinformed, perhaps you would graciously enlighten me and other readers without being quite so waspish (Be nice like Jeremy).
To quote Jose Mourinho: press Google.
You can’t afford our research fees.
“Croydon Communities Consortium £5,000
A series of public meetings and the development of on line forums which aim to increase the proportion of residents who feel involved in decision making in the borough and increase the proportion of decision makers who value and use these involvement mechanisms”
That worked out well for Mrs Elizabeth Ash and the Consortium, as they’ve ended up losing support from everyone except ToryLite, Anne Giles and UKIP.
Their stubbornness to abide by the rules, and a refusal to accept facts, has meant that their officers will now face a court case & be personally liable for court costs.
Why would they just not give back the money and accept they were wrong?
What purpose does it serve to go to court against the Council, and then hope to remain a “community group” in Croydon.
Surely that reveals the true aims of this group wasn’t ever about community cohesion but their own inflated egos.
Maybe now the Citizen and Tom Black will accept they too backed the wrong horse & that those they dubbed “agitators & vicous trolls” deserve an apology from them.
I am holding my breath ..not.