Brent Council and the Cara Davani “pay-off” – questions that still need to be answered

I commented on Martin’s 11 July blog about “Labour abstentions on Tory Davani motion”  LINK , that I might need to write a guest blog for what I would like to say, as a “comment” did not allow enough space. This is that guest blog:-

I was not at the Council meeting on 11 July, but I have watched the debate on the “Webcast” page of the Council’s website. The first thing it clarifies is that Brent Council was misleading us when it stated in June 2015 that Cara Davani was leaving ‘to take a career break.’ From the statements made in the debate by Cllr. McLennan, and particularly by Cllr. Colwill, it now appears that Ms Davani was made redundant, and that, it is claimed, the £157k she received was Brent’s “normal” redundancy pay-off of one year’s salary plus a further three months in lieu of notice.

However, if this was a redundancy, it was not a “normal” one. It was not the result of a staff restructuring, where her post had been done away with, like the two senior management reorganisations she brought in during her time in charge of Brent’s HR (with large redundancy pay-offs to the Assistant Chief Executive and Legal Director, among others, at the end of 2014, and to a whole raft of senior officers in March 2013). So (1) what was the reason for Cara Davani being made redundant, who decided that she should be made redundant, and why then, in June 2015?
  
 Had she become too much of an embarrassment to Brent Council, or was it part of an “exit strategy” she had worked out herself with her close associate and then interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, before the newly appointed Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, took over?

Cllr. McLennan, in response to Cllr. Warren’s motion, argued that Brent had to make this pay-off on the basis of external legal advice, and that if it had not done so, Cara Davani could have claimed against the Council for constructive dismissal. I welcome the news that Cllr. Warren has apparently made an FoI request for this legal advice to be made public LINK . If that legal advice was only sought around June 2015, it might have been correct, but only because Brent had failed to take timely disciplinary action against Ms Davani, in September 2014, for her misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case.

I have written a great deal about that case, and this article would be far too long if I went into the details again now, but I will refer to some earlier blogs, and provide links to them for anyone who wishes to follow up the points I will make. On 21 September 2014 I wrote jointly to Christine Gilbert and Fiona Ledden (then Brent’s Legal Director), referring to the Tribunal’s judgement, and to comments made by “Wembley Matters” readers on blogs about it LINK, before saying:

‘… I believe that the most important matter, before you consider your own futures, is that you must insist on the immediate resignation of Cara Davani (if she has not already left Brent's employment permanently). Any thoughts of wasting further money (including my own Council Tax payments) on an appeal in this matter should be dropped, as the Tribunal has made the findings of fact which make this such a damning judgement of Brent's actions against this employee, and no legal arguments can undo those findings.’

On the same day I wrote a similar email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, with copy to my Fryent Ward councillors, saying: 

‘What should you do, on Monday morning if it has not already been done before? If Ms Davani has not already resigned or been suspended, you should ensure that the Chief Executive, or the person deputising for her if she is not available, speaks to Ms Davani and insists on her immediate resignation, in the light of the findings of the Tribunal about her actions. While this would treat her misconduct more leniently than she has treated that alleged of others, it would allow her to go immediately, but with payment from Brent for her period of notice, and at least show that the Council is taking the judgement seriously. If Ms Davani refuses to resign, formal misconduct proceedings (including her suspension) would be required, with care being taken that the correct procedures are properly carried out (unlike in Ms Clarke's case).’

As we now know, no disciplinary action was taken then, and I believe there would have been no grounds on which Ms Davani could have claimed “constructive dismissal” if it had been. So (2) why was no disciplinary action taken against Cara Davani in September 2014, when there was clear evidence and findings of fact in the Employment Tribunal judgement to show gross misconduct by her, and who decided that no such action should be taken?

In opposing the motion at Full Council, Cllr. McLennan used Cllr. Pavey’s HR Review and press statements made by the Council that it would not tolerate the sort of behaviour shown by the Rosemarie Clarke case to support her views. Between November 2014 and September 2015 I made a number of attempts to get issues arising from this Employment Tribunal case “on the agenda” at meetings of Scrutiny Committee and Full Council, so that councillors could discuss them openly.

One example was a deputation that I had asked to present to Scrutiny Committee in April 2015, when it was considering the report on Cllr Pavey’s Review, and the draft action plan arising from it. What I hoped to say, so that committee members could question the interim Chief Executive and HR Director (who were present to speak on the report) about it if they wished to, included the following:

·      that the Review was set up to ensure that lessons were learned from the Rosemarie Clarke case;

·      that Cllr. Pavey could not consider that case, as his terms of reference would not allow him to; and,

·      as a result, the Review ignored an important lesson which should have been learned:

‘that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.’ 

After referring to guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director, that ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’, and evidence from the Tribunal’s judgement of misconduct by Ms Davani and a total failure by Christine Gilbert to follow Brent’s HR procedures when dismissing a grievance raised by Ms Clarke, my deputation asked:

‘If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.’

Scrutiny Committee would not allow me to present that deputation LINK . I think the presence of Cllr. Butt, sitting beside Cara Davani opposite the committee members, may have intimidated them into reaching that decision, but the official reason was advice from the Chief Legal Officer that I should not be allowed to refer to the Rosemarie Clarke case in speaking to the committee, as it ‘had not been fully concluded’.

Although that case was still not fully concluded, Cllr. Muhammed Butt was allowed to issue a statement about it at the end of July 2015. It claimed that he was giving the facts of the Rosemarie Clarke judgement, because of ‘untruths’ that had been written about it, but I responded to him LINK  pointing out that HE was the person trying to misrepresent the Tribunal’s findings. This was another example of him seeking to “protect” Cara Davani, and I invited him to respond to these charges, which he has always tried to ignore LINK . So I ask the Council Leader again (3) why was Cllr. Butt “protecting” Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

Although we now know, a year later, that Brent paid Cara Davani £157,610, we still do not know the answer to a second point which I tried to raise when rumours of a pay-off emerged in June 2015 LINK . Cara Davani was a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal case, and would have been personally liable to pay some of the compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal was due to award to Rosemarie Clarke. So my final question, to Brent Council, is (4) whether the out-of-court settlement made to settle Rosemarie Clarke's Employment Tribunal claim in September 2015 included any contribution from Ms Davani, or whether Brent Council paid the full amount including any compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal could have awarded against Ms Davani personally?

I will send a copy of this guest blog to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will also copy it to the three councillors who spoke in the debate on the motion at Full Council, the Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan, and the Leaders of the two Conservative groups, John Warren and Reg Colwill. I hope that they will, together, realise that the questions I have highlighted above do still need to be answered, openly and honestly, so that Brent can finally put the Rosemarie Clarke case behind it, and that they, or one of Cllr. Butt or Ms Downs on the Council’s behalf, will issue a public statement answering those questions.

Philip Grant.

Warren seeks details on source & content of Brent's legal advice on Cara Davani

Following the debate at Brent Council yesterday evening LINK when Cllr McLennan said the Council's decision not to discipline Cara Davani and to give her a pay-off was based on legal advice, Cllr John Warren has made the folowing request:

You are aware of my concerns over the pay- off to Ms Davani. I make a formal request for details of the firm that gave advice to Brent to settle on  a £157,610 pay -off.

I also seek details of this advice.

If you are unable to give me this information would you please take this as a freedom of information request.

 I just find it extraordinary that the evidence against Ms Davani at the Employment Tribunal was not deemed sufficient to pursue disciplinary action against her.

 I have also received the following comment from a reader.

How could Cara Davani (CD) claim constructive dismissal as she had already been found guilty at a tribunal of bullying and harassment?

How could she be entitled to statutory redundancy payments as she was not directly employed by the Council / paid through payroll as an employee for more than two years?

Had she been employed by the Council for more than two years and not been found guilty at a tribunal for matters potentially deemed to be gross misconduct, whereby she could have been dismissed, she would only be entitled to statutory redundancy pay,  which I understand to be one week's pay per year of service.

It beggars belief that Brent should pay CD this extortionate amount of money. Perhaps Brent should consider sacking, or suing their lawyers. 

Some vital additional information on South Kilburn for Brent Cabinet

The South Kilburn Regeneration is on the Cabinet agenda tonight and members are updated on progress. They are given an officer's report that went to Scrutiny Committee but not a report from Scrutiny Committee itself.

So that they can be informed I print below the Minutes of that meeting including points made by Pete Firm for the residents and tenants and the Committee's request for further information.

Readers may be interested to hear that another report reveals that the South Kilburn Trust has c£6m in its coffers LINK  

The Chair invited Pete Firmin, Chair of the Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association to address the committee.  He referred to the circulated report and stated that whilst it updated the committee there was no reference to some of the problems that had arisen from the redevelopment of the area.  There was a need to critically appraise the project, review the balance between the provision of private and social housing and the implications of the delays to the project.  He stated that the experience of contractors working with local people had not been all good.  A new health centre was being provided but this was needed for the existing population before it increased from the new housing being provided.  Pete Firmin also referred to a lack of consultation on the changes resulting from HS2.  He felt that as the regeneration project moved forward there needed to be a new commitment to work with local residents.  In response Richard Barrett (Operational Director, Property and Projects) replied that the report before the committee provided a broad outline of activity.  He acknowledged that there was now a need to engage local people in the review of the South Kilburn masterplan.  Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Housing and Development) reminded the committee that the remit of the South Kilburn regeneration programme was to provide new housing with every secure tenant being offered housing within the redeveloped scheme.  She responded to the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation and assured the committee that there was engagement with the local community and the regeneration scheme was giving hope to people that things would get better. 

Questions were asked regarding how many units of social housing were being provided as compared to private housing.  Councillor McLennan undertook to provide this figure.  It was pointed out that successive schemes within the project appeared to result in the provision of less social housing. Concern was expressed that as budgets got tighter less social housing would be provided.  Richard Barrett clarified that the target was to provide 50% social housing within the regeneration scheme overall. 

Members enquired about the slippage to the programme and how local residents were informed of this.  Richard Barrett stated that he attended a tenants steering group every 2-3 months to keep them up to date.  He agreed that the delays were unwelcome and led to longer periods of disruption for local people.  However, the scheme still offered local people the best opportunity for moving into better accommodation.   

Reference was made to complaints received from residents about the behaviour of some contractors.  It was explained that it was the responsibility of Brent Housing Partnership or the housing associations to work with the contractors. It was recognised that the Catalyst scheme had been the worst managed scheme and this had been raised with the developer and lessons learnt from it. 

Questions were asked about employment opportunities within the area created by the regeneration programme.  In answer to a question about Coventry Close, Richard Barratt explained that this was outside the regeneration area but the opportunity was being taken to try to influence the improvement of the area. The Committee heard how work with the police attempted to design out trouble spots within the new redevelopments.  Members were interested in receiving more information on this. 

Members were also concerned that the planned expansion of local schools would provide sufficient places for local children.  Richard Barrett explained the plans for the expansion of Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junior schools.  He explained that discussions were ongoing to get agreement to an arrangement that both schools supported but that it was at an early stage.

Members expressed their continuing concern over the need to provide better outcomes for local people and not just provide new housing.  At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Conneely addressed the committee and stated that local people were very concerned about the way they were being decanted and moved back into the area.  There was concern that local communities were being split up and the implication of this particularly for older people.  She wanted to see the process completed on time and people treated fairly.  Richard Barrett replied that every tenant was visited to assess their needs for the property they were moving in to.  In partnership with the housing service, decanted flats were being used for temporary accommodation.  Members asked for more detail on how this arrangement was working. 

The Chair thanked Councillor McLennan and Richard Barrett for their attendance.  

Requests for information:

·         accurate figures on the number of social housing units existing pre redevelopment and the number post redevelopment compared to the number of private units provided.

·         members to be provided with a schedule of rents for the area including a comparison with the pre redevelopment level of rents.

·         a population profile for the area showing how the number of people was projected to rise.

·         information on employment in the area so that it could be seen if the regeneration of the area was leading to a rising employment rate.

·         more information on how the plans for the area attempted to design out potential crime and the involvement of the police in this.

·         more information on the use of decanted units to house homeless people, including the number involved, the timeframes involved and the financial considerations.