No Access Croydon: the public access area of Fisher’s Folly was closed to the public in March 2025. Homeless people were directed to Central Library to book appointments for face-to-face meetings with council staff
CROYDON IN CRISIS: The council is being dragged into the High Court next week to face claims that it is failing to meet its statutory responsibilities on housing as a consequence of making its offices open only on an appointment basis. EXCLUSIVE by STEVEN DOWNES
Failed Mayor Jason Perry’s omnishambles council will be back in the High Court next week, this time to face claims that its cost-cutting move to shut itself off inside its Fisher’s Folly office building from the people it is supposed to serve breaks the law in respect of its statutory responsibilities for homeless people.
Inside Croydon broke the news in March 2025 of how, with barely one weekday’s notice, the then council CEO, Katherine Kerswell, ordered that Access Croydon should be closed to the public.
No reply: Mayor Jason Perry didn’t bother answering a letter signed by 30 organisations working in Croydon
The architect-designed, purpose-built, public-facing meeting space within the council building – which some insist on calling Bernard Weatherill House – was abruptly deemed to be out-of-bounds to Council Tax-payers, or people seeking to renew their parking permits, or to pay their green waste fees, or anyone else with a cause to speak to a council staffer.
Instead, a much-reduced operation was established in another part of Fisher’s Folly, with access strictly on an appointment-only basis. And in Kerswell’s “digital-first” world, if you didn’t have access to a computer or tablet device – which is often the case for older residents or those without a home – then tough.
Kerswell’s bright idea, fully approved by piss-poor Perry, resulted in the farcical situation of council staff having to escort the digitally excluded around to Croydon Central Library, where queues formed of people waiting to use a council computer in order to make an appointment to see a council official in a council building that they had stood outside just minutes earlier.
Within days of her ordering the closure, Kerswell was forced into issuing warnings to staff over their conduct, as flashpoints around access to Fisher’s Folly had seen the building’s security staff suffer abuse from under-stress council colleagues.
Digital first: Katherine Kerswell took no action to alter her decision to close Access Croydon before she quit Croydon in October
Staff forced to endure Kerswell and Perry’s new appointments-only system described the scene at Fisher’s Folly in one word: “Chaos”.
Almost 30 voluntary and charity sector organisations working in the borough wrote to Mayor Perry and CEO Kerswell demanding an immediate re-opening of the council offices to the public. They said that the council’s decision to close Access Croydon to anyone who does not have a pre-booked appointment is “denying residents access to vital support”.
Among the signatories were the Croydon BME Forum, Croydon Nightwatch, the London Renters Union, the South Norwood Community Kitchen, the South West London Law Centre and Croydon Voluntary Action.
With Kerswell and Perry ignoring the letter, the Public Interest Law Centre took up the case, with their day in court now fixed for next Tuesday, July 7.
“The High Court will hear an application for permission to bring a Judicial Review of Croydon Council’s decision to close its walk-in homelessness service, Access Croydon,” PILC told Inside Croydon. “The claim challenges the council’s March 2025 decision to close its walk-in homelessness service.
“The consequence is that those seeking homelessness information, advice or assistance can only access this via a system based on pre-booked appointments and an online self-service tool.”
PILC has brought the case on behalf of one of the hundreds of people effectively cut-off from the council services which Croydon is legally obliged to provide. PILC say that the claimant “is an individual who faced eviction but, because of a learning disability, was unable to access the digital system independently”.
And they add: “The claimant argues that the council’s decision has seriously disadvantaged people who are digitally excluded or unable to use online services.”
PILC says that the legal challenge argues that Croydon Council acted unlawfully for several reasons, including:
- It failed to meet its legal duties to homeless people. The council is required by law to provide accessible homelessness advice and support and to follow national guidance and its own homelessness strategy. The claim argues that closing the walk-in service breached those duties
- It discriminated against people who cannot access digital services. By requiring people to apply online, the council is said to have unfairly disadvantaged people who are digitally excluded, including those who cannot read or write or who have disabilities.
- The Mayor of Croydon and Chief Executive of Croydon made the decision in a closed meeting without a written decision. Croydon acted outside of regulations set out for local authorities and of its own constitution.
- Overall, the claimant’s case argues that closing the walk-in service amounts to unlawful gatekeeping of homelessness assistance, and discriminates against vulnerable individuals who cannot access digital-only services, or who require urgent assistance that the current system fails to accommodate.
The penultimate point raised – that of Perry and Kerswell acting outside the council constitution and making undemocratic decisions in secret – is intriguing because it is exactly the kind of misconduct that Jo Negrini, Kerswell’s predecessor, and Tony Newman, the discredited former council leader, were accused of in the Report In The Public Interest, or RIPI, produced by council auditors in 2020, just before the council’s financial collapse.
Judicial Review: Croydon Mayor Jason Perry must have a season ticket for the High Court, his council has to defend cases there so frequently
Now, if the PILC succeeds in its case, they will have gone some way to demonstrate that as well as being financially bankrupt, Croydon Council under Mayor Perry is morally bankrupt as well.
“The issues raised by this case extend well beyond Croydon,” PILC says.
“An investigation by Kings College London found that only three of London’s 33 boroughs continue to offer face-to-face drop-in services for people experiencing homelessness. The closure of walk-in services has significant consequences for many vulnerable groups, including people with learning or physical disabilities who cannot navigate online systems, rough sleepers without reliable internet access and those who need immediate in-person advice.
It has also increased pressure on charities, frontline advice organisations, libraries providing digital support, and, in some cases, hospitals are left supporting people unable to access housing services elsewhere.”
Read more: No Access Croydon: 30 voluntary groups demand reopening
Read more: They voted to raise your Council Tax, then to increase their pay
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
PAID ADS: To advertise your services or products to our 10,000 weekday visitors to the site, as featured on Google News Showcase, email us inside.croydon@btinternet.com for our unbeatable ad rates
- 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
If, or hopefully when, Perry loses, he should personally bear all the legal costs involved. Us taxpayers should not have to fund his incompetent and arrogant decision-making
Don’t stop there.
What about the LTN case, which took two years of preparation and legal wranglings before it reached court, or because Perry shot off his big mouth about how much money the cameras were making for the council?
Or the time he took Inside Croydon to court for [checks notes] publishing what his incompetent council had published on its own website. That was at least £20,000 of tax-payers’ money frittered away needlessly on lawyers just to satisfy his own hubris.
Never has there been a finer example of the Peter Principle
The fuckwits at Croydon Council are taken to court so often, do they have a courtroom at the High Court reserved for Croydon cases ?!
I know the prisons are full, but if they chucked Piss-Poor in a cell, perhaps Croydon’s problems would be eased overnight.
Perhaps someone has watched the episode of the Good Life in which Margo Leadbetter visits the Council office with her long list of complaints and gives all the jobsworths what for and we just need to reassure them that Margo was not real and that they are safe now that Penelope Keith has sadly passed on..
A very accurate report and to compliment this the Senior Emgagement Panel with Tenant and Leaseholders( Customer Influence Assurance Panel) formerly raised concerns and requested an explanation. We were ignored! Noting this panel has a responsibility for Governance of Social Housing Services . This was a shameful act