CROYDON IN CRISIS: How will the borough’s £192,474 per year chief executive explain the suggestion that she lied under oath when defending herself against allegations of racism? By KEN LEE, Town Hall reporter
Time to report back: Katherine Kerswell, the council CEO
Almost a month has passed since the end of the controversial Employment Tribunal hearing that cost Croydon’s long-suffering Council Tax-payers an estimated £150,000, at least, mostly in order to defend the reputation of the council’s chief executive.
And yet the borough’s elected representatives still have not been given a date for when the CEO, Katherine Kerswell, will report back to them on how she was vindicated on all counts.
Any reluctance on Kerswell’s part to face public scrutiny from Mayor Jason Perry and councillors just might be caused by the lingering accusation that she lied under oath to the Tribunal judge and panel.
The Employment Tribunal case was brought by former exec, Hazel Simmonds, who alleged constructive and unfair dismissal against the council, with allegations of victimisation, harassment and racial and sexist discrimination against the authority and also against CEO Kerswell. Simmonds even had a couple of anecdotes in which she described meetings in which Kerswell and one of her interim directors behaved in a questionable manner.
Firm but fair: Employment Judge Adam Leith
All charges brought by Simmonds were dismissed by Employment Judge Adam Leith, though not before she got on the public record the assertion that Kerswell had lied under oath over one meeting in which allegations of racism, brought by a staff member, were dismissed out-of-hand by the chief exec.
The barrister paid for by Croydon Council did not challenge or seek to refute this allegation, which was made in Simmonds’s summing up of her case.
And in his three-hour summing up, the Employment Judge Leith made a point of saying that he and the tribunal panel accepted that the meeting had taken place, as Simmonds described in her evidence.
Ahead of the case, Kerswell submitted a statement that ran to 101 A4 pages, full of the kind of condescending and patronising statements for which the CEO has become notorious among her staff since her arrival at the crisis-hit council in the autumn of 2020.
Kerswell’s personal defence piggy-backed that of the council, so she had no need to dip into her £192,474 annual salary to meet any of the costs of a legal team which included a barrister and pupil, private solicitors from Browne Jacobson, plus the council’s own senior lawyers.
On any given day of the online proceedings, there could also be at least half a dozen six-figure-salaried Croydon council execs glued to their screens, rather than actually doing the jobs they are paid to do.
Page-turner: Kerswell and the council’s lawyers used the Penn Report to blame Simmonds for many of the authority’s short-comings
Much of the case revolved around the findings of the Penn Report (as first published by Inside Croydon, rather than secretive Kerswell and the council), which investigated the circumstances of the council’s financial collapse in 2020, including the failed in-house building firm Brick by Brick.
It was Kerswell who drafted the terms of reference and commissioned Richard Penn, from the Local Government Association, to conduct the probe.
Penn submitted his report in February 2021, but Kerswell delayed its publication for more than two years, claiming the need for legal clearances and “Maxwellisation” (consulting those accused of wrong-doing, which Croydon carried out at least twice).
Most of Penn’s recommendations – such as that the council ought to submit complaints to professional bodies about the conduct of senior council finance and legal execs, including former finance chiefs Richard Simpson and Lisa Taylor and former Borough Solicitor Jacqueline Harris-Baker – have never been carried out. All promise for some kind of retribution against those responsible for crashing the borough’s finances have been broken.
But in February 2021, Kerswell did use the Penn Report as the basis on which to suspend Simmonds, Taylor and two other execs.
Simmonds was the council’s “executive director of Gateway, strategy and engagement”. She was never specifically identified in Penn’s report for failings. She was, though, a member of the council’s executive leadership team which was criticised for its failure to act against the bullying culture under previous chief exec, Jo “Negreedy” Negrini.
No complaints: Richard Simpson, named specifically in the Penn Report, is Sutton Council’s finance chief
At the end of the hearing, Employment Judge Leith found that Simmonds, who had conducted her case in person, failed to provide evidence for her claims.
What remains unanswered is why the council, and Tony McArdle, the chair of the Government-appointed improvement panel overseeing Croydon’s slow financial recovery, turned down an offer from Simmonds to drop the claims and settle out of court – potentially saving the Council Tax-payers of the borough at least £100,000.
It is the kind of question that the sharper-witted councillors at Croydon Town Hall (there might be one… maybe two) could reasonably put to Kerswell, possibly as she reports back on the case to the appointments and disciplinary committee.
But there has not been a single meeting this year of that committee.
According to the council website, the disciplinary committee is not due to meet until January 29 – but no agenda has yet been released.
If the Simmonds ET case does come up at that meeting, councillors might be entitled to ask why they should believe anything that Kerswell says – after all, if she can lie under oath to an Employment Tribunal, who can believe anything she tells the council?
Read more: A Christmas present to Croydon: another court victory
Read more: Tribunal judge finds no evidence of racism or unfair dismissal
Read more: #PennReport wanted police probe into possible misconduct
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: In January 2024, Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SEVENTH successive year in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
Was the action taken against Simmonds discrimatory? That does appear to be a given.
Was it wrong overall? There is no question that Ms Simmonds was treated differently to the others.
Was it Racism? That, as Judge Leith said, was unproven.
Mr McArdle and Ms Kerswell may have felt it best to go to court and waste £150k. Many other executives and senior directors seeking to prevent a professional reputation from being tarnished would feel the same.
But as a resident, one has to ask – exactly what reputation does this Council and Serior team have left?
A reasonably intelligent person once said to me ” it does not matter that you are right, if no one ever believes you.” And thats the rub!
Does anyone actually believe any utterance that emanates from that BHW orifice? Does anyone in Croydon at this stage even care anymore?
Perhaps they think that they work for the Post Office or Fujitsu, not Croydon, and so don’t have to tell the truth?
The similarities in corporate attitudes, the utter arrogance towards the public, public service and duty, is very familiar
Katherine ‘Transparency’ Kerswell got a redundancy payout of £420000 after 16 months at Kent when she didn’t even qualify for statutory redundancy.
Only Croydon Council would pay off Jo Negrini £437000 and bring in someone who was also subject to a similar pay off.
Money is no object when it comes to the massive legal costs run up by Kerswell and her directors or their massive payouts, but the kitty is empty when it comes to providing the services we actually pay for.
It’s an absolute disgrace. She should go without another pay off.
The agenda for the next appointments committee was published late on a Friday evening (after publication of our report).
It includes a Pravda-style report on the Employment Tribunal (but omits the costs of prosecuting the case).
Item 7 on the agenda is an assessment of the performance of the chief executive.
The item is blank…
‘The item is blank’ seems oddly appropriate as assessment of Katherine Kerswell’s performance.
What would good performance look like?
Kerswell leading senior staff and Councillors in a version of the Can Can. Now at least that would provoke a little hilarity in these dark and mendacious times. Trouble is that they would do it but not tell us when.
Putting her personal possessions in a cardboard box and leaving Croydon, never to return.
Does the committee even know what she does? Whomever is in the personal PR department is clearly “ghosting” her. Must be the digital AI understanding the GIGO principle and deeming silence speaks diplomatic volumes
The council does love an employment tribunal and will spend hundreds of thousands per case even when they know they’ll lose. What a waste of our money
Same goes for Special Needs Tribunals where much is spent to ensure that the Council gets it own way when, if it didn’t fight so much, the same money could be spent on giving the disabled child the education that the parent wants!