Guest blog by Philip Grant
In August 2016, Wembley Matters reported that Cllr. John Warren (as a
local elector, not as a councillor) had asked Brent’s Auditor to make a Public
Interest report about items of expenditure in the Council’s 2015/16 accounts
relating to Cara Davani and the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. LINK I added a comment to that blog, saying that I had also exercised my
right to object to those accounts, and I understand that there were four other
Brent electors who objected, with five of the six objections relating to
Brent’s £157,610 pay-off in June 2015 to its former HR Director, Cara Davani,
and related matters.
I know that a number of interested readers may be wondering “what has
happened about this?” Until a few days ago, the answer appeared to be “not very
much”, but in the past few days I have received a letter from the Auditor at
Messrs KPMG, so can now give you an update. The letter was marked “Private and Confidential”, so I will
not attach a copy, but as some of the points are already in the public domain,
and others are just an outline of procedure, I am happy that I can share the
following information with you.
The Auditor
wrote on 14 November to formally accept that my objection of 10 August was
validly made under section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. The
letter confirmed that I had set out a case which could give grounds for the
Auditor to apply to the Court for a declaration that Brent Council made
unlawful payments during 2015/16 in respect of:
a) A proportion of the total amount paid by the Council in the out-of-court
settlement of the Rosemarie Clarke case, which should have been the personal
liability of the second respondent in that case, Cara Davani (the Council’s
former HR Director).
b) A proportion of the Council’s legal costs (both external and internal)
in the Rosemarie Clarke case which should have been recharged to, and paid by,
Cara Davani personally, as a separate respondent in that case.
c) The whole of the £157,610 “compensation for loss of office” paid to
Cara Davani, and shown as part of the Senior Employees’ Remuneration to ‘Human
Resources Director (to June 2015)’ at Note 30 to the Council’s draft
accounts.
d) The whole of any amount paid around June 2015 as an “Exit Package” to
Andrew Potts, the Council’s former Principal Lawyer (Employment and Education)
or similar title, which is included in the amounts for either ‘compulsory
redundancies’ or ‘other departures agreed’ at Note 32 to the Council’s draft
accounts.
The Auditor also
accepted that, if his enquiries led him to the view that these payments were not
unlawful, I had validly requested that he should issue a public interest report
in relation to matters a) and c) above.
The Auditor’s
letter also set out how his firm’s enquiries would proceed, in respect of my
objection (and other valid objections) to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts, saying they
would now:
■ ask the Council for their response to the objection;
■ ask the Council for documents relevant to the objection;
■ collect the documents that we think will help me make a decision about
the objection;
■ give you and the Council the opportunity to make further comments on
the objection;
■ make any further enquiries we consider to be appropriate;
■ if appropriate, tell you and the Council our provisional findings and
views; and
■ decide the objection.
The letter concludes by saying:
‘While this marks the start of the formal objection process, we
encourage you and the Council to discuss the issues raised to see whether you
can come to an agreement. Please also note that you are free to withdraw your
objection at any time.’
Readers who have
followed this saga will realise that I am unlikely to withdraw my objection
without seeing convincing evidence that the payments involved were properly
made. I would, however, be willing to discuss these issues with the Chief
Executive / Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council, if they are willing to make
available (“in confidence”, if necessary) the information and documents needed
to ensure that any such discussion could be meaningful.
I am aware that
Cllr. Warren has received a similar letter from the Auditor in respect of his
objection, but I do not know whether any of the other three local electors who
also sent objections to payments made by Brent to, or on behalf of, Cara Davani
have also heard from Messrs KPMG. It would make sense if the local residents
involved could co-ordinate their dealings with Brent Council (if there are to
be discussions). If you are one of those objectors, please contact me (via
Martin, if necessary, see email address under “Guest Blogs” in right-hand
column), or at least put a comment with your views below. Thank you.
Philip Grant
