CROYDON IN CRISIS: Like a dodgy business that offers to pay for positive reviews on Tripadviser, the council has been patting itself on the back this week because some local government colleagues have said some nice things about them. By STEVEN DOWNES
Pension plan: CEO Katherine Kerswell gave a speech to Wednesday’s cabinet meeting, in which she claimed much of the credit for any improvements
Try not to laugh.
“Together the Mayor and chief executive are well-respected and provide strong, visible leadership to the council.”
That’s one of the earlier, credulous findings of something called a LGA Corporate Peer Challenge, the latest report to be published into the workings of Croydon’s cash-strapped and dysfunctional council.
In contrast with previous reports and reviews into Croydon Council over the past five years, such as the Reports In The Public Interest by auditors Grant Thornton, or the Penn Report, or the more recent and more feeble Kroll Report, the peer challenge’s report, released this week, speaks of the council in almost entirely glowing terms.
On one occasion, it even uses the word “exemplar”.
There’s a reason it’s called a peer review. It’s because it was conducted by peers – colleagues, mates if you like – of senior council staff, all arranged by the LGA, the Local Government Association.
That’s the same Local Government Association that in 2020 identified and recommended Croydon’s current chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, as an emergency replacement for the abruptly departed Jo Negrini.
Civic Tripadvisor: the LGA’s report, which backs up work that the LGA has done in Croydon
Kerswell, of course, went on to be appointed to the post full-time, after she had drafted her own job description and overseen a recruitment process that saw her as the only candidate to be interviewed for the top job.
So you might think that the LGA has its own reputation at stake here in portraying Kerswell’s four and a half years in Croydon as a triumph.
It is also the same LGA that helped Kerswell to recruit Elaine Jackson as assistant chief executive, a job that had never previously existed. The LGA even paid Jackson’s six-figure salary for the first year or so in post.
So you might think that the LGA has its own reputation at stake in portraying this little bit of civic empire-building as a runaway success.
Managing the work of the peers – a panel of seven local government wonks from across the country, including senior council staff and past and present councillors – was the LGA’s own Kate Herbert, who at a meeting at the Town Hall this week admitted that she “has been working in Croydon for a number of years”, helping the council as it has dealt with the aftermath of its financial collapse.
Controlling the narrative: after working on Croydon for ‘a number of years’, the LGA’s Kate Herbert has got to mark her own homework
So you might think that Herbert herself, as well as the LGA, have their reputations at stake in trying somehow to convince people that everything in the Fisher’s Folly garden is coming up roses.
And it might be the view of the LGA’s “strategic adviser”, Barry Quirk, that it assists the LGA to portray itself as having helped Croydon out of its hole of incompetence, mismanagement and venality.
Because, after all, that’s what mates, or peers, do – help one another in times of trouble.
It is also probably worth mentioning that LGA strategic advisor Barry Quirk is married to Katherine Kerswell.
Kerswell, 63, is now paid £200,000 per year by Croydon Council, as she winds down towards her retirement on what will end up being a very generous pension.
Of all the reports produced about Croydon Council since 2020, the LGA peer challenge is the one that is least in the interests of the public. This is a report written for senior council officials by senior council figures.
There is an overwhelming sense that Kerswell called in the LGA to conduct its review in order to bring the curtain down on the traumatic past five years. All the external investigations are now complete. It is less than six months now until the government-appointed improvement board is supposed to end its stay in Croydon.
Having this very favourable peer review attached to her CV will surely allow Kerswell to claim that her time in Croydon was a success, unlike her spells in senior positions at Nottingham City Council, or at Kent County Council, or even at Leicester City Council. Perhaps no one will remember that Croydon Council has issued a record three Section 114 notices while she’s been in charge?
Who knows, when Kerswell does decide to step down, there might even be a day out at the Palace for her and Barry, with some kind of minor gong “for services to local government”. Wouldn’t that be grand?
It tells you all you need to know about the hidden agenda of the LGA’s peer review that, after spending four days at Fisher’s Folly last October, the panel’s top recommendation is to improve the council’s publicity. “The all-fur-coat-and-no-knickers approach to local government,” as one council insider described it.
Nowhere in the 36-page report is there a specific mention of the council’s budget-busting £20million-plus overspend this financial year. Nor is the £83million overspend predicted for 2025-2026 mentioned. Yet both of these looming and new financial disasters will have been known at the time of the LGA visit.
Instead, they came up with this: “Tell the next chapter of the Croydon story. Develop a clear narrative about where Croydon is now, where it is going… and control the narrative going forward, supported by a strong communications strategy.” Those are our italics.
Vested interest: Richard Plant was allowed to speak at a cabinet meeting, but never declared his company’s commercial arrangements with the council
“A compelling narrative will help members, staff, partners and residents look towards
the future and help them see how they can support the delivery of this vision.”
Note that: “this vision”. That, of course, is the self-serving vision of Kerswell, and Perry, and of a few of Perry’s mates from local business, such as Richard Plant, the director of estate agents Stiles Harold Williams.
At Wednesday night’s Town Hall cabinet meeting, Plant was invited to speak ahead of, and spoke for longer, than any elected opposition councillors. Plant was introduced as the chair of Develop Croydon, the property developers’ lobby group. No mention, no declaration of interest, was made by Plant nor by his mate Mayor Perry, of Stiles Harold Williams’ role as agents in the multi-million-pound disposal of council properties.
“This isn’t about patting ourselves on the back,” serial liar Mayor Perry lied as he opened the meeting.
“This report which provides external independent validation is an important milestone for Croydon,” said Perry, stiltedly, slowly reading from his notes.
“This is the first time the council has invited a Corporate Peer Challenge in many years, which highlights our commitment to openness, challenge and change,” said Perry, sounding more like one of those dodgy businesses that pays for positive reviews on Tripadvisor.
The peer review did have the good grace to point out that among the improvements it had identified at Croydon Council, such as important work on housing, some had been made or been set in motion in 2021, when Labour’s Hamida Ali was the council leader, and before Perry’s election as Mayor.
The review also highlighted how Perry may have made some decisions for political reasons, rather than saving the council money.
Tearful: Annette McPartland was one of the senior staff to speak at the cabinet meeting
“It will be necessary to evidence that the council has considered all options and done all it can to bring down costs,” the report’s second recommendation states.
“This may require exploring proposals that conflict with political commitments. Where decisions have been taken to reject proposals because modelling has shown that making one saving would result in pushing up costs elsewhere, it would be helpful to share this with key partners, such as government.” No shit, Sherlocks.
And recognising that Mayor Perry really has failed to “fix the finances”, or even cut a deal with Conservative or Labour governments, the LGA panel adds: “The peer team strongly urges Government… to engage with the council in a meaningful way to identify how the structural debt issue can be addressed.” Which is nice. There’s at least another two dozen councils in England to which the LGA could apply a similar sentiment.
Oddly, that recommendation did not get much of a mention at Wednesday’s Town Hall meeting, when the peer review was the only item on the agenda. The meeting resembled a kind of religious, revivalist rally of some strange cult, sometimes emotional, full of councilspeak waffle, but never off-message.
Unusually, Kerswell made a speech, a lengthy one, at the cabinet meeting. This was her pitch to claim credit for the peer review’s findings. It really betrayed the reasons why the LGA people had been called in. Vindication – Kerswell’s.
Jackson got to say a few supportive words. So did Annette McPartland, the council’s corporate director of adult social care and health, and an employee of the council for 30 years, who seemed close to tears at times. But Jane West, the council’s finance director, was never asked to speak. Funny that.
The report, and Kerswell’s selective interpretation of it, describe a Croydon Council barely recognisable from the organisation that buys CCTV cameras that don’t work in this country, or which hands £40million contracts to a rubbish contractor two years after sacking them, or which threatens legal action against a homeless charity, or which closes four libraries and axes its youth engagement team against the public’s wishes.
Or a council which has one of the highest number of complaints about it upheld by the Local Government Ombudsman.
In one section, the report reads: “Members of the [Corporate Management Team – Kerswell’s £150,000 per year closest colleagues] operate well together as a cohesive and supportive body, and are highly thought of internally and by external partners.” Yes: highly thought of internally and by external partners.
And they also claimed the council had an “ambitious vision for the borough, with clear corporate priorities”.
They continued: “The council has clearly made significant progress and is responding to the issues flagged and there is now stable leadership across the organisation.”
At Wednesday night’s council meeting, one key phrase in the report was never mentioned.
Despite improvements, the peer review report said, “generally residents and local people are not yet seeing a lot of tangible evidence of improvement and delivery externally”.
And they also noted: “Some staff still feel reticent to challenge managers and share concerns.”
There is also “more work for the council to do to ensure that it is responsive and able to deliver service improvement and rebuild trust with residents”.
But this was never a report for the residents.
This was a report for Katherine Kerswell, and for part-time Mayor Jason Perry’s 2026 re-election campaign.
Read more: IT’S OFFICIAL: Croydon still among country’s worst councils
Read more: Fresh shame for council in 4 ‘severe maladministration’ cases
Read more: Didn’t I do well?! Kerswell gives herself a pat on the back
Read more: Criticism of Kerswell’s election count ‘justified’ says report
- 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
LGA? Perhaps they should renamed Local Government Apologists ?
Maybe it is the only way they can give us all a laugh! 🤣🤣🤣
Here we go again. Another report wasting who knows about much of our money. A bankrupt council led by a wildly over-paid CEO and directors who have failed to achieve any ‘tangible evidence of improvement and delivery’ slapping themselves on the back and giving themselves pay rises. Farcical and morally corrupt.
Self praise is no praise or recommendation
An appalling indictment of the way this Council is run by self- serving elected and non- elective individuals who take little or no responsibily for their actions ( except the very few successes). If such people were employed by private( and public) companies, at such unacceptably high salaries, they would have been out the door a long time ago.!
Having worked in the public, private, and charity sectors I’ve seen lots of overpaid incompetent senior managers telling each other how great they are in all of them.
At least in politics, we get to vote in someone better
The slow pace of change within state run organisations, dear oh dear, brings one to tears. Scene 21, ‘The Committee Meeting’ in Monty Python’s Life of Brian is bang on.
The problem with peer reviews is that they often turn out to be an example of corporate confirmation bias. Peers don’t criticise others for doing what they are doing and praise people for doing the same things as them.
This detachment from reality is why overpaid executives keep giving themselves bigger pay rises even though their business is failing.
In politics the only peer review that really matters happens at the ballot box. Perry and his colleagues will keep producing these puff pieces over the next year, but I hope that people of Croydon have now seen through that con and will vote for a new way of running the Council in May 2026.
Private sector execs may be overpaid in your eyes Peter, but they do not ‘give themselves’ pay rises. They have a remuneration committee for that and they are at the mercy of the shareholders. Greens do not like capitalists but thj’s the way the market works.
And to whom do you think remuneration committees are answerable to?
Shareholders. Like I said
You’re beginning to sound almost as naive as piss-poor Perry.
“So you might think that Herbert herself, as well as the LGA, have their reputations at stake in trying somehow to convince people that everything in the Fisher’s Folly garden is coming up roses.” Everyone knows that the best thing for roses is lots of well-rotted horse manure, which is what this lavish praise is made from.
Perry sits on a couple of LGA committees, the Councillors’ Forum and Improvement and Innovation Board and is London Borough Council Executive Member for its Conservative Group. The LGA’s Penn wrote the infamous report that Perry hid from public view for reasons he’s never made clear.
That Jason has got his mates to give him the thumbs up therefore comes as no surprise. Same goes for his brass neck in not asking us taxpayers for our thoughts
Does not an effective review of ones performance take a 360 degree review. Does this not involve Employee’s, those third party suppliers, and other interested parties? Do 70 Councillors feel the same?
However the real test of whether those two warrant the accolades of being well-respected and provide strong, visible leadership to the council.” lies with the 390,500 residents of Croydon and how they feel.
It is easy to list all the failures those two have had. But one needs to be a very experienced detective with a huge team to find their successes in delivering services to the people of Croydon.
Much of any of the work that is good, being done, can be directly attributed to those employee’s who try to make under resourced departments work, and deliver at least to some residents/areas some of the time.
The reality is that those two have delivered to the Central Government masters that lent them huge amounts of money with no oversight.
Employee’s past present and future can and will see what their leadership has wrought every day on the front line and how people react to them.
Suppliers and contractors can see if they have been dealt with fairly or not and enabled to deliver good quality services to the Borough.
Those really are the only views that count. The rest is simple self delusion and self aggrandisement.
We, as residents, have been stiffed with Council incompetence negligence and mis-direction. We can see exactly what has been delivered to Croydon residents every single day and for decades to come.
Not one grass shoot of improvement in West Croydon is visible – just accelerated deterioration and absence of both of those leaders supposed to be in charge.
I would challange both Mr Perry and Ms Kerswell to come visit West Croydon/Broad Green and take a walk with me (slowly as legs shot) down London road and view what the Council has done. No Councillors, No Politic’s no propaganda, no abuse no recriminations – just a polite wander and view real life here as it is. They will get a better understanding of the impacts of their actions
There is little to feel proud about.
I agree with Peter Underwood’s opinions on peer reviews and elections….. remind me Peter how did you do in your election attempts?
The problem with such surveys is ‘survivorship bias’ i.e. unsatisified people have already left.
Excellent point, to which I add this maxim: “It’s not the rats who first abandon a sinking ship, it’s the crew members who know how to swim”
I find in Local Government Governance that there is nothing as incestuous and fundamentally corrupt as Senior Managers marking each others work. The deliberate and mindless destruction of the external audit process and the removal of financial responsibility penalites for Serving Officers and Councillors to face has created this Junta of the Self Servers who can only offer running things into the ground with a never ending decrease in the communities quality of life as they all do so rather well out of it all.
I would not call the removal of the external audit requirements mindless. I do believe it was a deliberate act for a deliberate purpose. it allowed a government administration to allocate resources elsewhere in the knowledge that if that gamble paid off they could point to what a successful policy that was – and if it failed – well they can always blame the profligacy and incompetence of local government – simply called a no lose gamble.
Unfortunately many in local Government are not stupid and would not borrow recklessly whilst they could face penalties for taking high risks forced onto them by Central Government.
So accountability had to go to make operating less personally risky. Lets be realistic here – not one person in this Borough would stand for election knowing they could face the loss of their family home and everything they had saved for being forced to borrow to deliver services or not borrow and not deliver services.
I would really like to understand though , how Public servants with a duty and fiscal responsibility for the Boroughs finances did not repeatedly at every meeting having done due giligence and assessed the Risk and kept a Risk register did not advise against the actions that were taken during both the previous administrations of both Political parties.
Or perhaps they did?