Brent Council and Cara Davani – something has happened!

Guest post from Philip Grant

Wembley Matters readers still following this long-running saga might be interested to know what has happened since the last update I gave at the end of June. LINK

The auditor, Andrew Sayers of KPMG, finally sent his ‘provisional view and material documents’ letters to the five Brent residents, who had objected to the Council’s June 2015 leaving payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani, on 3 August 2017. The final paragraph of his letter reminded me that the “disclosure of information” provisions (Schedule 11) of the relevant legislation still apply to his enquiries. I am therefore restricted as to what I can tell you, as ‘failure to comply with Schedule 11 is capable of amounting to a criminal offence and liable to a fine upon summary conviction.’

When we read his ‘provisional view’, the same word sprang to the minds of three objectors. It was not an expletive, but I can give you a clue without disclosing any of the contents of the letter. The OED definition of the word is: ‘a liquid containing quicklime or powdered chalk, used for painting walls or ceilings etc.’

Still, we were not disheartened, as the auditor’s letter stressed that this was only his provisional view. He had not reached any final view, or decided our objections, and would not do so until he had considered any additional comments or evidence that the objectors or the Council might wish to provide.

However, when I looked at the “material documents” which the auditor had sent with his letter, I found that these did not include any of the documents we had been expecting to receive, since they were handed over to KPMG by the Council last December. There was only one “material document” which did relate to the payment to Ms Davani, and as that document is already “in the public domain” I am allowed to tell you about it, or you can read it for yourself. LINK

Why are the 30 June 2016 minutes of Brent’s Audit Committee a “material document” in considering objections against the £157,610 payment to Cara Davani? Because at item 7 (Draft Statement of Accounts 2015/16) they contain a brief explanation of the reason the payment was made, and of the legal advice on which it was based.

But if a Council Officer had explained everything about the payment in June 2016 (in the first public admission of such a payment, a year after it had been paid), why had five local electors objected in August 2016 to that payment being included in the accounts? Surely the primary documents from May and June 2015 should also be treated as “material documents”, and shown to the objectors so that they could provide comments, and any counter evidence, in support of their objections!

I was not able to persuade the auditor with this argument, when I put it to him on 4 August. Nor did his position on this change when I drew his attention to the relevant guidance issued by the NAO, “Auditor Guidance Note 4” (AGN 04), which he is meant to follow, later in the month. Para. 36 of AGN 04 says:

‘Sharing material information and inviting representations on it is required in public law as the auditor is exercising quasi-judicial powers.’

I was arguing that the primary documents (which the auditor holds) about the £157,610 payment must be “material documents”, so should be shared with the objectors before we made our comments. The auditor said that he would look at our comments (which he had first asked for within three weeks, but then agreed an extra week, with a 31 August “deadline”), and if he then considered those documents to be “material”, he would share them with us and give us the opportunity to comment on them. I summed this up to him as:

‘What you appear to be saying is: 'I won't share material information with you now, but after you have made any representations I might share some of the material information with you (and if I do, I will give you the chance to make some further representations).'

As the “deadline” was fast approaching, the objectors had to submit the best ‘additional comments and evidence’ that we could in the circumstances. One of the points I was able to make was that the summary of the May 2015 legal advice, as given to the Audit Committee, showed that the point the QC had been asked to look at was “unfair dismissal”, if Brent had sacked Cara Davani. At a meeting with the objectors last December, the Chief Executive referred to a document Ms Davani had given to the Council at the time. This strongly suggested that the point the QC should have been asked to look at was “constructive dismissal”, which may well have produced different advice, and not led to any payment to her.

We have not been allowed to see Cara Davani’s “statement of loss”, and even if we had I would not be allowed to tell you what it said, but I did refer to it in a “guest blog” in January. LINK :-

‘We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!’

I can assure you that the objectors have done their best to provide the auditor with information about a pattern of abuses of power at the top of Brent Council from 2012 onwards, which came to a head with the, we allege unlawful, payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani in 2015. I have also provided evidence to show why that payment was really made (and how the Officer who provided the “official” explanation to Audit Committee was, like the Council itself, the victim of a deception).

I have been greatly helped in piecing together my researches over Brent Council and Cara Davani by comments, many of them anonymous, which Wembley Matters readers have made in response to blogs by Martin and myself since 2014. Thank you, everyone, for the parts you have played in allowing the objectors to lay the evidence before the auditor. There is a strong case for the auditor to make a Public Interest Report, to bring this matter into the open, so that key figures at Brent Council, past and present, can be asked to explain their actions, and be held to account. We shall have to wait and see whether Mr Sayers will now make that report.

Philip Grant.

Brent Council and Cara Davani – when (if ever) will we really know what happened?

 

Brent and Kilburn Times June 30th 2016

Guest blog by Philip Grant

Cara Davani – didn’t she leave Brent Council two years ago? And it was a year ago that the Council finally admitted that she had been given a “pay-off” (of £157,610). Surely the enquiry into this must have been sorted out by now? I’m afraid not.

When I last gave an update about “progress” on the investigation of objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts LINK we had been told by the Auditor that he anticipated sharing material documents with the objectors by the end of June. When the agenda for Brent’s Audit Advisory Committee meeting on 26 June appeared on the Council’s website,  KPMG’s “External Audit Progress Report” said that they expected to share the documents, and other material, ‘in July’.

As the Auditor had agreed to share those material documents (which he received from the Council in mid-December) with the objectors, and we had been expecting to get them early in 2017, I asked to speak about this item on the agenda for Monday evening’s meeting, and the committee Chair (David Ewart, an independent member) agreed in advance that I could. I hope that Martin will be able to attach the text of what I said to this blog, so that you can read it in full if you wish to. There were two points that I wished to raise with the committee, and the Chair asked me to deal with them separately. 

The first was the objectors’ disappointment with the lack of progress in KPMG’s enquiries, and our concern that the investigation process might have been changed, without explanation. We were originally told that we would have the chance to make further comments before the Auditor reached any ‘provisional findings and views’. The latest progress report spoke of sharing ‘our provisional view and material documents’ at the same time. I asked the committee to invite the Auditor to clarify the position, and to encourage him to provide a timetable for the remaining steps in his investigation, through to his final decision on the objections.

The Auditor, Andrew Sayers, did not seem to accept that there was any real change from what his predecessor had set out in November 2016. He thought that knowing what his provisional views were would help us and the Council when he shares those views and material documents with us. He still wants any further comments from us, and assured the meeting that his provisional views will be open to change in the light of any further comments and evidence he receives. On how long it was taking, his response seemed to be that he had to do his job properly [I would agree that he should, but does it really need to take so long?]. 

The Auditor seemed to suggest that the material would be shared in about six weeks (so August, rather than July?), but said the timetable after that would depend on what further comments he receives and what further investigations he may need to make, so he could give no indication of when his final decision might be published.

There were murmurings from the committee over how long his investigation was taking, and what it would cost (Mr Sayers did not know how much it had cost so far, but he would write with a figure that could be passed on to committee members). Cllr. Davidson, in particular, was concerned over the costs, and appeared to suggest that KPMG could be carrying out unnecessary work, just to increase their fees.

My second point, asked the committee to recommend that Council Officers consent to Mr Sayers sharing the legal advice with us "in strict confidence". The papers around that advice comprise very ‘material documents’, as they provide the only evidence in support of Brent’s decision to make the payment to Ms Davani.

The Chair asked Brent's Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, to address them. She told the committee, effectively, that "Legal Privilege" was a fundamental principle that should never be breached. She did not appear to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of this investigation, refusal by the Council to allow the objectors access to the documents, in strict confidence, might appear to be unfair.

The Chair asked Mr Sayers whether the lack of consent from the Council was "impeding" his investigation, and the Auditor said that it was not, although it might mean that he had to take legal advice himself over whether to disclose certain documents to the objectors. I am not sure whether committee members realised that this would mean additional costs to the Council for the investigation.

I was allowed a brief reply, but like Mr Sayers, I had to say that I could not disclose the full nature of the allegations in the objection, but that they did involve matters which were 'contrary to law', and that this was more than a possible query over whether a QC's advice was correct.

There was no real discussion or vote on what action the committee should take over my second point. It was almost like a shrug of the shoulders to say "well, we can't go against the advice of the Chief Legal Officer".

I was probably naïve to think that the Audit Advisory Committee might, just might, be persuaded to recommend that the legal advice, which the Council claims as justification for the £157,610 “pay-off” to Cara Davani, could be shared with the objectors. But at least I tried to move things forward towards getting this long-running matter resolved, and the minutes of last Monday evening’s meeting will hopefully record the main points of what was said.

So, Wembley Matters readers, and the rest of Brent’s citizens, will have to carry on waiting for details of why the payment was made, if that is found to be different from the Council version(s), to be officially revealed. You can be sure, however, that the five local electors who objected to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts will do their best to see that the truth comes out, eventually.

Philip Grant.