In early January on his X/Twitter account Lee Nallalingham covered how Croydon Council had been redacting published data at a far higher amount than other London Borough councils. We covered this at the time and have previously covered the increasing rates of redaction at the council.
Mayor Jason Perry replied to Lee’s tweet stating that this level of redaction was a simple error, and that “the figure should have been closer to 8%”. He also stated that “We have now tightened the approach going forward and will correct the previously published 2025/26 data”.
On the 8th February Mike Swadling of this parish followed up asking Mayor Perry “we are now almost a month on from your welcome commitment to resolving this. You appear to have had the data for November at that time, yet I see on the Council’s website 67% of Novembers’ data totalling over £26 million is still redacted.”
As at the time of writing, 7am, 17th February the tweet has received no reply and historic payment data has not been updated. It is fair to note the newly published data for December has seen a dramatic reduction in the amount of costs redacted. I should also note the £26 million figure is correct, but the rate of redaction is 40%.
% of Redacted Payments
% of amount Redacted
January
31.7%
32.5%
February
40.1%
27.4%
March
40.8%
23.3%
April
41.3%
39.8%
May
39.9%
28.2%
June
39.8%
28.9%
July
38.7%
28.2%
August
40.0%
35.5%
September
42.5%
32.9%
October
40.5%
32.7%
November
40.0%
29.0%
December
12.6%
3.5%
What are Croydon Council hiding?
Why has this not been published? Mayor Perry stated on the 9th January that the correct amount was “closer to 8%”. Either this amount is correct and Croydon Council are choosing not to provide this detail to the public, which leads to the question ‘What are Croydon Council hiding?’ or Mayor Perry provided his answer with no awareness of the correct amount and presumably no intention of resolving the issue, which again leads to the question ‘What are Croydon Council hiding?’
It’s entirely likely that redacted data provides little information of interest, in which case why not publish it like other councils? We of course take Mayor Perry at his word, that he had the correct information for November on 9th January. Why then has that level of detail still not been provided to the taxpaying public over a month later?
Council Tax up 33% in 4 years.
The new proposed budget for Croydon Council has been published with another 4.99% rise making a total of 33% over 4 years. With council finances still constrained following de facto bankruptcy it’s no surprise council tax rises continue at this rate. This comes on top of a further Capitalisation Direction of £119m “for 2026-27 to meet its financial obligations. These directions allow councils to fund day-to-day costs through borrowing or asset sales.”
Last year the government brought in the Commissioners to oversee the council budgets and ensure the authority fulfils its “best value duty”. The Commissioners costs are funded by Croydon Council Taxpayers, and presumably they get to see the data still being redacted from the public’s view. Given the disastrous state of the councils’ finances and the increased burden placed on us all, it is surely all the more important data on where the money goes, should be more rather than less transparent. Yes of course, some data needs to be redacted for legitimate purposes. But, Why was Croydon’s rate ever so much higher than other London Councils? Why did no one at Croydon Council ever question this? Why more than a month after the Mayor has stated he has different figures, have these still not been published?
Croydon Council has been making waves on social media for the high levels of Redacted payments in its published data.
Croydon like all councils are required to published details of payments over £500. These payments includes details of the expense type, the budget, the amount, dates, and importantly the payee.
Some payee details are always redacted, this is done to protect individuals or highly sensitive information. But we have seen an increased redaction of payments at Croydon Council, and wrote about this problem in both September and April 2025
New research by Lee Nallalingham published on X/Twitter shows that in this financial year Croydon Council are redacting information at a far higher rate than most councils in London. Lee’s tweet explains this as below:
=====================
BREAKING: Croydon Council has paid £316m to “redacted” suppliers so far this financial year.
That’s 49,224 redacted payments – over half of ALL payments the council has made, as per data available to mid December.
For context: The average London council made around £40m in redacted payments over the same period, roughly 8.6% of total spend.
Croydon’s figures are on another planet in comparison.
If you’re wondering how they ended up £1bn in debt and bankrupt three times, this is probably a good place to start.
I’m not accusing anyone of illegality. But numbers like this, combined with Croydon’s track record, are impossible to ignore.
The council has serious questions to answer.
=====================
Redacting information at almost 6 times the rate of the average London council doesn’t inspire confidence, and makes one wonder – what are Croydon Council hiding?
The TaxPayers’ Alliance Town Hall Rich List has for the past few years not included details for Croydon. Our borough is one of 15 which the TPA has listed where “No accounts have been published”.
Thanks to some assistance we have however been able to find details of the roles at Croydon Council paying over £100,000. Of the 26 roles we have been able to tie 24 to a current or previous role holder. Since these have not been directly published by the council we are reluctant to publish here but they do give a good indication of these being filled roles.
Exact salaries are not given for most roles but instead a salary range is used. Where this is the case we’ve extrapolated the mid-point of the range:
Role
Salary Range
Mid-Point or as stated
Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service
£204,190
£204,190
Corporate Director, Adult Social Care and Health (DASS & Caldicott Guardian)*
£154,909 – £164,151
£159,530
Corporate Director, Children, Young People and Education (DCS)* This post has a Special Occupational Scarcity Allowance of £10,849. The total salary including this allowance is £175,000
£154,909 – £164,151
£159,530
Corporate Director, Housing** This post has a market supplement of £5,453. The total salary including market supplement is £169,604.
£154,909 – £164,151
£169,604
Corporate Director, Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery** This post has a market supplement of £7,452.79 The total salary including market supplement is £171,603.79
£154,909 – £164,151
£171,604
Corporate Director, Resources (S151 Officer)* This post has a market supplement of £10,662. The total salary including market supplement is £174,813
£154,909 – £164,151
£174,813
Assistant Chief Executive**
£147,140 – £153,002
£150,071
Director of Public Health*
£125,873 – £130,876
£128,375
Chief Digital Officer
£125,873 – £130,876
£128,375
Director of Adult Social Care Operations (Deputy DASS)
£125,873 – £130,876
£128,375
Director of Children’s Social Care
£125,873 – £130,876
£128,375
Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration
£125,873 – £130,876
£128,375
Chief People Officer This post has a market supplement of £8,731. The total salary including market supplement is £128,295.
£115,000 – £119,564
£128,295
Director of Legal Services & Monitoring Officer
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Adult Social Care Commissioning, Policy & Improvement
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Education
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Quality Commissioning & Performance Improvement
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Streets and Environment
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Housing Management
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Housing – Estates & Improvement
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Housing Homelessness Prevention and Accommodation
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Finance (Deputy Section 151 Officer)
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Commercial Investment
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Culture & Community Safety
£115,000 – £119,564
£117,282
Director of Policy, Programmes & Performance
£104,322 – £108,466
£106,394
Director of Transformation This post has a market supplement of £17,180. The total salary including market supplement is £125,646.
£104,322 – £108,466
£106,394
Total
£3,462,399
We have data from 2018 on the number of Staff paid over £100,000 at Croydon Council. 2022 was an anomalous year due to a large turnover of staff. What we have seen is despite Croydon Council declaring de facto bankruptcy and a new administration we have seen a continued rise in the number of staff earning over £100K. There are clearly several important functions performed by Croydon Council, and senior roles should be paid to reflect that. However, this is a council that has issued 3 Section 114 notices and imposed a 15% Council tax increase only a few years ago. It appears little has changed to reduce costs at the top of the council.
Year
Staff Earning over £100,000
2018
20
2019
19
2020
23
2021
19
2022
29
2023
No data
2024
No data
2025
26
Opaque Payments
Good people can differ on what expenses a Council should spend council tax payers hard earn income on. But surely, we should all agree a council with the financial difficulties that Croydon has faced and passed on to the people of the borough, should not be undertaking unnecessary expenditure.
Since we last reviewed payments over £500, Croydon Council has continued to provide limited information to the people of the borough. The ‘Cultural Growth Fund’ in Croydon has paid out another £87,803.03 in the period of May-July 2025. Of this £33,301.50 or 38% is redacted, and the ‘bankrupt’ council isn’t informing taxpayers where the funds went. This brings total ‘Culture Growth Fund’ spending in the year to £191,683.35, 31.6% of which has redacted payees. This is a small amount in the overall council budget, but one has to wonder why a ‘bankrupt’ council continues with unnecessary and often hidden expenditure.
A further example of this is the £5,175.70 paid out for Croydon being the 2023 ‘BOROUGH OF CULTURE’, Yes you read that right, this is part of the now £8,491.70 paid in 2025 for something that finished in March 2024. With the Commissioners coming into Croydon, taxpayers can only hope they gain control of Croydon’s unnecessary expenditure.
Culture Growth Fund April – July 2025
Payment Date
Vendor Name
Amount
02-Apr-25
Redacted
£2,000.00
02-Apr-25
Substrakt Limited
£4,250.00
02-Apr-25
WIGGLE WONDERLAND COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
£11,125.00
09-Apr-25
WIGGLE WONDERLAND COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
£985.14
09-Apr-25
OCS Group UK Limited
£1,105.92
15-Apr-25
Mobius Industries Ltd
£1,785.00
17-Apr-25
Redacted
£1,410.00
17-Apr-25
Redacted
£1,425.00
22-Apr-25
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£575.00
29-Apr-25
Headline Security Limited
£2,139.70
29-Apr-25
Redacted
£2,500.00
29-Apr-25
Redacted
£5,600.00
09-May-25
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£1,050.00
21-May-25
Redacted
£962.50
27-May-25
Redacted
£1,144.00
27-May-25
Redacted
£650.00
28-May-25
Redacted
£2,700.00
03-Jun-25
OCS Group UK Limited
£14,346.64
03-Jun-25
The Ramblers Association
£1,000.00
04-Jun-25
Redacted
£1,050.00
04-Jun-25
REcreate Agency Limited
£2,500.00
09-Jun-25
Browne Jacobson LLP_
£2,515.80
25-Jun-25
Substrakt Limited
£4,250.00
27-Jun-25
Headline Security Limited
£543.75
30-Jun-25
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£2,100.00
02-Jul-25
Redacted
£2,920.00
09-Jul-25
Redacted
£2,000.00
11-Jul-25
Layla El-Deeb
£1,400.00
17-Jul-25
OCS Group UK Limited
£744.58
22-Jul-25
Redacted
£1,750.00
22-Jul-25
Redacted
£530.00
23-Jul-25
Redacted
£2,910.00
23-Jul-25
Fool’s Paradise Ltd
£2,085.00
30-Jul-25
Redacted
£3,750.00
BOROUGH OF CULTURE April – July 2025
Payment Date
Vendor Name
Amount
17-Apr-25
Redacted
£1,316.00
02-Jun-25
Bishops Printers Limited T/A The Graphic Design House
£1,560.00
17-Jul-25
OCS Group UK Limited
£2,299.70
Good work may well have been done for all of these payments. The question remains why was it commissioned in the first place?
We are joined by Mark Johnson, Conservative Councillor for Shirley North in Croydon and Brexiteer. We reminisce about the 2016 Referendum campaign and discuss his experiences as a Croydon councillor.
“You might also use it to question why Sutton Council has 5 members of staff earning more than the Prime Minister, also why 4 staff members details are undisclosed”
Early April saw the publication of the TaxPayers’ Alliance Town Hall Rich List. This is the annual list detailing the pay of local authority employees receiving total remuneration over £100,000. This list allows you to question why Surrey County Council have an undisclosed member of staff on £222,500, and what necessary function the ‘Executive director – customer, digital and transformation’, performs for £110,137. You might also use it to question why Sutton Council has 5 members of staff earning more than the Prime Minister, also why 4 staff members details are undisclosed, 2 of whom earn more than their Chief Executive. These may indeed be important roles, performed by conscientious staff, but with average council tax rises this year of 5%, it’s reasonable to question where the money goes.
Having written about previous entries from Croydon Council on the Town Hall Rich List, we were keen to see how things had changed after 3 years under the Executive Mayor.
“Now one might think this was an oversight, but this is the third year running Croydon Council has failed to publish details of the remuneration of their top earning staff”
Unfortunately, Croydon Council alongside 14 others, failed to produce details of staff earning over £100,000. Now one might think this was an oversight, but this is the third year running Croydon Council has failed to publish details of the remuneration of their top earning staff. It is reasonable to wonder if a de facto bankrupt council, which has issued three Section 114 notices, and which pushed up council tax by 15% in 2023 might feel it should be open to extra rather than less scrutiny on its spending. Instead, Croydon has this year decided to be part of the 3.9% of the 382 local authorities, and the only one in London, who fail to publish the data.
“Croydon was the 2023 London Borough of Culture. Yet in March 2025 residents still see funds flowing from the council for this dubious honour”
Worse still is this is becoming something of a trend. Croydon was the 2023 London Borough of Culture. Yet in March 2025 residents still see funds flowing from the council for this dubious honour. In amounts over £500, £331K was paid out by the council in 2022 from the ‘Borough of Culture’ cost centre, £1.69million was paid out in 2023, £832K in 2024, and up to the end of March £3K has been paid out in 2025, for a program that happened in 2023. You might wonder where the money went, the table below details the top 10 recipients.
Vendor Name
Amount
Redacted
£505,234.10
Stanley Arts
£271,995.00
Talawa Theatre Company
£201,000.00
London Mozart Players
£145,762.50
Turf Projects_
£145,000.00
White Label Publishing Ltd
£137,518.60
Think Events (London) Ltd
£121,551.67
BH Live Ltd
£107,500.00
The Brit School
£75,000.00
Savvy Theatre
£73,500.00
‘Redacted’, i.e. we aren’t told who received the funding tops the list. This redaction is a worryingly growing trend in Croydon’s spending. Just 0.4% of payments for the ‘Borough of Culture’ payments over £500 in 2022 were redacted, this rose to 19.1% in 2023, 21.5% in 2024, and so far in 2025 stands at 39.7% of payments. What are Croydon Council hiding? As a reminder all of these payments came after the council had first issued a Section 114 notice and declared de facto bankruptcy, most came after they had driven up council tax by 15% in one year.
Similar results can be seen with spending from the ‘Culture Growth Fund’ cost centre. Detailed below we can see the sharpe increase in spending from the fund after the fall following the first Section 114 notice. Alongside this, we see how Croydon Council now see fit to redact details for over 25% of over £500 payments made so far in 2025.
Year
Year spend
Percentage of spend Redacted
2018
£493,855.65
2.2%
2019
£754,669.46
3.1%
2020
£305,640.33
3.0%
2021
£59,544.95
0.0%
2022
£25,450.00
0.0%
2023
£13,151.40
0.0%
2024
£367,171.78
16.5%
2025 (Jan-Mar)
£104,910.32
26.0%
“Croydon Council…. paid out just under £1.2million on Borough of Culture and Cultural Growth (whatever that means) in 2024, but won’t tell you who £239K (20%) was paid to”
Croydon Council despite a £1.4billion general fund debt, and a request for a total of £136million exceptional financial support from the Government for 2025/26, paid out just under £1.2million on Borough of Culture and Cultural Growth (whatever that means) in 2024, but won’t tell you who £239K (20%) was paid to.
It would be great for Croydon Council to stop needing to redact where it pays these funds, by simply stop wasting taxpayer money on unnecessary services. But if they insist on spending these funds, along with details of top end staff remuneration, it’s time for Croydon Council to stop hiding the data and come clean.
“It is reasonable to wonder if a de facto bankrupt council, which has issued three Section 114 notices, and which pushed up council tax by 15% in 2023 might feel it should be open to extra rather than less scrutiny”
At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 19th February Mike Swadling spoke about his ideas for a Croydon DOGE.
“As significant as stopping the waste in the £50 billion budget is, I suspect more savings are being made by the cultural impact that DOGE is bringing about”
I want to talk briefly about DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency. But I want to localise it a little bit and talk about a Croydon DOGE. We’ve all seen DOGE and Elon Musk’s team going to USAID and strip back huge amounts of government spending.
As significant as stopping the waste in the £50 billion budget is, I suspect more savings are being made by the cultural impact that DOGE is bringing about.
Most government workers are not on the take. They’re not politically motivated. Most middle managers with an authority to spend will simply be going about their job and responding to the incentives and cultures of the organisation they’re in. And I say this as a middle manager with an authority to spend most of my career. Overnight that culture has changed from one of ‘no one asked- questions regarding the spending’ to ‘don’t let what you signed off become the laugh line of the White House press secretary’.
I suspect that undocumented cultural change is saving many more billions of dollars than perhaps the direct work that DOGE is doing.
“Does anyone know who received £171,356.72 Borough of Culture Payments in 2024?
I can’t tell you. No one knows, because that’s the total amount of redacted payments that they’re not telling us who they gave it to”
I want to ask you a question.
Does anyone know what links, Savvy Theatre, The Enriched Kids CIC, SDNA LTD, and Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.?
They all received £2,000 from Croydon Council last year as part of a Borough of Culture payment.
Another one.
Does anyone know what links, Talawa Theatre Company, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus, Scanners Inc, and Double Take Projections LTD?
They all received payments between £40,000 and £65,000 from Croydon Council last year as part of the Borough of Culture.
Does anyone know who received £171,356.72 Borough of Culture Payments in 2024?
I can’t tell you. No one knows, because that’s the total amount of redacted payments that they’re not telling us who they gave it to.
Croydon, yes, the bankrupt borough of Croydon, was the London Borough of Culture in 2023. All of those payments came in 2024, and many of them very late on.
“Whilst the £813,000 worth of payments from the Borough of Culture that I can find, barely touch the sides of this £136 million that the council needs, it does, if you pardon the pun, set the culture of spending”
Croydon is a de facto bankrupt borough and is requesting a £136 million bailout from the government after overspending by at least £98 million this year and is predicted to overspend by £83 million next year. Whilst the £813,000 worth of payments from the Borough of Culture that I can find, barely touch the sides of this £136 million that the council needs, it does, if you pardon the pun, set the culture of spending.
One can hardly be surprised when a council officer providing actual services overspends their budget when they know the council has given £10,000 to the Brit School, or £6,000 to the Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited, or £3,100 to The Poetry Takeaway Ltd. Often, of course, these funds are accompanied by a photo opportunity for a plethora of Croydon dignitaries. What is their incentive to reduce spending if you’re actually trying to provide a real service?
The council, of course, has been quick to try and fix its financial problems by raising funds off the backs of the people of Croydon. In 2023, Croydon’s council tax went up 15%. Despite Mayor Jason Perry promising to scrap Low Traffic Neighbourhoods or LTNs, he backtracked and is alleged to have said because “£20m of future income … would have to be replaced”. The council even floated the plan to impose a workplace parking levy on car park spaces, as if the people of Croydon needed more reasons not to return to the office or indeed invest in Croydon.
We need a cultural change in Croydon, and specifically at the borough. Not everything needs to be hiking taxes or even sweeping cuts to services. We need a cultural change at Croydon Council to have it focus on key services, on the people of Croydon, and on not wasting money.
“Is there any chance the taxpayers of Croydon can get an Independence Day from all this spending? We need a DOGE Croydon to publicly, and perhaps more importantly, within the Council, ring the alarm at this waste”
If you look at Your Croydon, the newsroom for the Executive Mayor, Jason Perry, the top story is Croydon’s proposed licensing scheme to tackle rogue landlords. A quick flick down the page then boasts about a new flagship programme to support residents to be healthier. Are these two things needed? Are they even a good idea? Does a bankrupt borough need to be spending money on things like this?
In the past year, the Civic Mayor of Croydon has raised the flag outside Croydon Town Hall for Uganda Independence Day, Nigerian Independence Day, India Independence Day, Pakistan Independence Day, all with the accompanied photo ops and no doubt receptions for local dignitaries. Is there any chance the taxpayers of Croydon can get an Independence Day from all this spending? We need a DOGE Croydon to publicly, and perhaps more importantly, within the Council, ring the alarm at this waste.
“I would question whether the £10,000 to £38,000 payments for services were really fully costed, or whether that was just a number somebody decided to charge us”
We need to set the stall out that costs are being cut and that Croydon taxpayers’ cash is not some slush fund for Council officers to dip into. The Council will say, of course, that they are cutting payments and not wasting money, but I’m sure if we had a Croydon DOGE operating, they would have questioned the £7,550 paid to Emergency Exit Arts, the £10,000 paid to Sound Diplomacy Limited, the £13,200 paid to Giant Cheese Limited, or the £38,000 paid to Croydonites Festival of New Theatre CIC. All of these were made in one payment, no doubt for a well provided service, but isn’t it interesting how suspiciously round these numbers often are.
I would question whether the £10,000 to £38,000 payments for services were really fully costed, or whether that was just a number somebody decided to charge us. These all came from the Cultural Growth Fund at Croydon Council. That’s not the London Borough of Culture Fund I mentioned a moment ago. That’s a different fund. Don’t worry, when they can no longer waste your money on being the London Borough of Culture, they can give it away in Croydon Cultural Growth.
On that note, another question for you.
Can anyone tell me what the Culture Growth Fund spent £55,625.98 on?
I’ve given you a clue already. That’s the redacted amount. I can’t tell you what they spent it on. They don’t tell us. We live in a democracy. We live in an era of freedom of information, and they don’t tell us who our money went to.
Now I should declare a slight conflict of interest here. There has been a recent story on Croydon Council spending £3,077 of taxpayers’ money on teas, biscuits, sandwiches and other refreshments in 2024. I must admit to being the recipient of these. I have volunteered some time at the Council and received free tea and coffee for this. I’ve even had some sandwiches and biscuits on an all-day training course to enable me to do such things. I don’t mind admitting that when I give up many hours of free time, frankly, I do expect a cup of tea in return.
But lastly, I will say if this cost is of concern to you, might I suggest the council simply in future hold back from funding Stuco Design Limited, Premm Design Limited, or Continental Drifts, no I’ve never heard of any of them either, all of whom received more than £3,000 from Croydon Council in 2024 for Cultural Growth.
“A judicial review being brought by residents of the London borough will claim the LTNs should be “quashed” because the primary motivation behind them was “financial security … rather than environmental considerations”
In early December it was reported in the Telegraph that the High Court will hear that “Croydon council created six LTNs as a “revenue-raising exercise with no environmental benefits that unhelpfully dispersed traffic to surrounding roads”. The story is behind a paywall and received relatively little coverage.
They reported that the campaign group Open Our Roads were taking action so that “A judicial review being brought by residents of the London borough will claim the LTNs should be “quashed” because the primary motivation behind them was “financial security … rather than environmental considerations”.
It went on to say:
“The skeleton arguments also rely heavily on a Sunday Telegraph report from earlier this year in which Jason Perry, Croydon’s Conservative mayor, admitted he could not honour an election pledge to scrap the LTNs because “£20m of future income … would have to be replaced”.
“Legal papers, seen by The Telegraph, say that despite “considerable opposition” the council introduced LTNs because of the “anticipated income from enforcement fines” sent to motorists who enter roads closed to through traffic. The council anticipated raising just over £10m in three years”.
“Explaining how local authorities have no legal powers to use traffic measures to “raise revenue” it says that to do so is “tantamount to taxation”.
In response the council has said “we can confirm that the council introduced six Healthy Neighbourhood schemes as part of its priority to make Croydon a cleaner, safer and healthier borough”.
In his manifesto when running for Mayor, Jason Perry stated:
“Over the last eight years of Labour running Croydon Council a consistent theme has been that residents feel they are not being listened to. From planning to LTNs and council tax to housing repairs the feedback has been that Labour have simply implemented what they wanted without actually taking any notice of what we were all saying”.
With less than 18 months until new elections Mayor Perry will need to show how he is any different.
“As a reminder Croydon was the London Borough of Culture for 2023, but in the second half of 2024 over £257,000 was paid out from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre”
Spending continues
Whilst Section 114 notices have curbed some spending, Croydon Council has still found unnecessary ways to spend taxpayer money. We’ve written this year and last about Borough of Culture spending. As a reminder Croydon was the London Borough of Culture for 2023, but in the second half of 2024 over £257,000 was paid out from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre for amounts above £500.
We now have data for all of 2024 up to the end of November and this shows for amounts over £500 a total of £813,703.18 has been paid out this year from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre. No doubt many of the services provided were very good but that does not make them necessary. It is surprising how exactingly round many of the payments were. 12 payments were made for exactly £3,000.00, 7 for exactly £5,000.00, 6 for £10,000.00, 5 for £2,000.00 and 2 for exactly £40,000.00. Who were these payments made too? Well, we’ve listed what we can below but £171,356.72 were made to a “Non Commercial Supplier” and therefore the payee was redacted. This includes payments of £15,600.00 and £10,600.00 for which some further detail is surely in the public interest.
Funding for the 2023 borough of culture year came from a range of national, London wide and local sources, but when pensioners have their heating allowances withdrawn, ULEZ imposes costs on the drivers who can least afford them, and Croydon Council tax keeps rising at above inflation rates, how does the Mayor justify these payments?
“It is surprising how exactingly round many of the payments were. 12 payments were made for exactly £3,000.00, 7 for exactly £5,000.00, 6 for £10,000.00, 5 for £2,000.00 and 2 for exactly £40,000.00”
Borough of Culture Payment totals Jan-Nov 2024:
Payee
Total
Number of Payments
Redacted
£ 171,356.72
69
Talawa Theatre Company
£ 65,000.00
4
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus
£ 60,628.00
3
Scanners Inc
£ 51,616.40
5
Double Take Projections LTD
£ 40,000.00
1
White Label Publishing Ltd
£ 35,788.60
12
Stanley Arts
£ 29,995.00
10
STRANGE CARGO ARTS COMPANY LIMITED
£ 28,410.00
2
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£ 23,441.75
8
Sound Intervention Limited
£ 21,779.84
2
London Mozart Players
£ 19,922.00
3
Four Communications Ltd
£ 18,764.46
7
4 Wise Monkeys Ltd T/A Light Up Trails
£ 11,422.00
2
YeahPod Music
£ 11,250.00
2
Jonathan Samuels T/A Samprojects
£ 10,701.40
4
Contemporary Dance Trust LTD
£ 10,676.24
1
Profile Security Services Ltd
£ 10,395.52
7
The Brit School
£ 10,000.00
1
Sysco Productions Ltd
£ 9,793.00
1
Norwood JunKAction
£ 8,500.00
2
The Young Urban Arts Foundation Limited
£ 7,790.00
1
Continental Drifts
£ 7,200.00
3
Fool’s Paradise Ltd
£ 6,903.00
4
HURLYBURLY THEATRE
£ 6,750.00
3
Worldbeaters LTD
£ 6,690.00
2
HH Producties
£ 6,025.00
1
Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited
£ 6,000.00
1
Croydon with Talent Ltd
£ 5,685.00
2
Good Wolf People Ltd
£ 5,000.00
1
Croydon Town Centre Bid
£ 5,000.00
1
ATELIER ARZU LIMITED
£ 4,930.00
13
Tiny Productions
£ 4,760.00
1
LYNNEBEC COLLECTIVE CIC
£ 4,700.00
2
New Addington Pathfinders Group_
£ 4,500.00
1
Drum the Bass
£ 3,800.00
1
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC
£ 3,600.00
2
Bishops Printers Limited T/A The Graphic Design House
£ 3,364.00
3
QWERKY ENTERTAINMENT LTD
£ 3,320.00
4
Finesse Foreva Ltd
£ 3,300.00
1
Pif-Paf Theatre Ltd
£ 3,290.00
2
Churchill Support Services Limited
£ 3,264.00
1
Llama Digital Ltd
£ 3,240.00
1
The Poetry Takeaway Ltd
£ 3,100.00
1
Beeja
£ 3,000.00
1
Bold Mellon Collective C.I.C.
£ 3,000.00
1
Hoggs Hospitality Ltd
£ 3,000.00
1
Premm Design Limited
£ 2,681.50
2
Levantes Dance Theatre Ltd
£ 2,400.00
1
Digital Drama Productions Ltd
£ 2,250.00
1
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£ 2,171.50
2
Savvy Theatre
£ 2,000.00
1
The Enriched Kids CIC
£ 2,000.00
1
SDNA LTD
£ 2,000.00
1
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.
£ 2,000.00
1
Zip Design Ltd
£ 1,950.00
1
Rap Therapy
£ 1,950.00
1
Bainbridge Conservation Ltd.
£ 1,616.00
1
Desireé Kongerød McDougall T/A An Act Above
£ 1,590.00
1
Amanda Smethurst Consultancy
£ 1,500.00
1
Cat and Hutch
£ 1,300.00
1
Autistic Community Hub CIC
£ 1,200.00
1
Herbe Walmsley
£ 1,200.00
1
Reaching Higher
£ 1,100.00
1
Glorious Gazebos Ltd
£ 1,084.08
1
Croydon Voluntary Action
£ 985.00
1
Slide Dance
£ 900.00
1
Universal Artists Agency LTD
£ 750.00
1
Dhol Academy LTD
£ 750.00
1
A Due Bus Ltd
£ 750.00
1
The Andy Copps Company Limited
£ 700.00
1
Glenn Foster Photography
£ 675.00
1
Atalian Servest
£ 667.97
1
Oyinkansola Gabriel
£ 625.00
1
Zoo Co Theatre Ltd
£ 600.00
1
Kerala Cultural and Welfare Association
£ 600.00
1
LadyLaird
£ 550.20
1
Croydon Natural History &
£ 505.00
1
Croydon Minster Church_
£ 500.00
1
Purley BID
£ 500.00
1
Age Uk Croydon
£ 500.00
1
Cutting Edge Design Ltd
£ 500.00
1
TOTAL
£ 813,703.18
238
“With the spending taps seemingly flowing at the borough HQ once again, surely those in charge at the council won’t be able to justify another bumper Council Tax rise”
As if this wasn’t enough after a resting period, we have seen an unwelcome return to payments from the Culture Growth Fund. This was used by the previous Labour administration for many of their wasteful projects. The 65 payments over £500 made to the end of November 2024 totalled £318,696.03 and the totals by payee are listed below.
Payee
Total
Number of Payments
Redacted
£55,625.98
21
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC
£38,000.00
1
FESTIVALS AND EVENTS INTERNATIONAL LTD (FEI)
£35,715.00
3
ARTANGEL TRUST (THE)
£23,051.00
1
Think Events (London) Ltd
£18,200.00
1
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.
£15,199.00
1
Door 22 Limited
£14,630.00
3
Beeja
£14,050.00
1
Giant Cheese Limited
£13,200.00
1
Learn to Dream Ltd
£13,009.95
2
WIGGLE WONDERLAND COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
£12,750.00
2
Sound Diplomacy Limited
£10,000.00
1
Emergency Exit Arts
£7,550.00
1
K4 Medics Ltd T/A K4 Medical Services
£7,395.00
3
London Calling Arts Ltd
£6,562.50
2
Stuco Design Limited
£5,950.00
2
Premm Design Limited
£4,720.00
2
Continental Drifts
£3,460.00
1
Browne Jacobson LLP_
£3,275.80
3
Zip Design Ltd
£2,975.00
2
Vauxhall City Farm Limited
£2,792.00
1
Stanley Arts
£2,500.00
1
HandMade Theatre
£1,300.00
1
TGTM Ltd
£1,195.00
1
Four Communications Ltd
£1,000.00
1
Caroline Vallance t/a Caroline Coates
£960.00
1
Profile Security Services Ltd
£904.80
1
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£797.50
1
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£700.00
1
LadyLaird
£627.50
1
Norwood JunKAction
£600.00
1
Total
£318,696.03
65
We can only hope that Croydon Councils New Year’s Resolution will be to move to sensible tax and spend. With the spending taps seemingly flowing at the borough HQ once again, surely those in charge at the council won’t be able to justify another bumper Council Tax rise.
“What did ministers know, when did they know? I’d put a third question though. Why didn’t they find out?” – Diane Abbott, Sierra Leone Debate, House of Commons 18 May 1998
In early December the Kroll report on the refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls was published. Refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls overran by £37.5 million. Many details of this overspend came out in the Grant Thornton audit report issued in 2022.
The council website describes the Kroll report as “an independent review looking into the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls and related matters.
It was commissioned by the council to provide clarity over the probity and integrity of decision making around the Fairfield Halls refurbishment project, the reasons the project ran over budget and schedule, governance failures and whether there was evidence of potential wrongdoing by individuals.”
The report is 260 pages, some select extracts are below. One of the reoccurring themes is the poor flow of information from council officers to Councillors. The refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls was controversial from the point it started. If the elected representatives running the borough were not receiving the information they needed on the biggest building project in the borough, (to quote Diane Abbott) “Why didn’t they find out?”
“The risks of not going through a formal procurement process and allocating such a complex project to an untested company were never drawn out for elected members”
1 Introduction
“At the time of the decision to grant BBB this project, the company had only just become operational (in January 2016) and had not yet built a single property. It had no track record of delivering any projects, and did not have any experience delivering any projects with the specialist nature of refurbishment of an entertainment venue. Due to the nature of the company structure between LBC and BBB, it was decided to offer the wholly Council-owned property to BBB under a license to deliver the refurbishment and therefore no competitive procurement was carried out to assess suitability of the delivery body. The risks of not going through a formal procurement process and allocating such a complex project to an untested company were never drawn out for elected members in the June 2016 Cabinet report.”
“From interviews with LBC staff outlining the decision-making processes that existed at LBC at the time, it appears that Ms Negrini had ultimate responsibility for the decision to recommend BBB to the Project”
3 Executive Summary
“While we have not found evidence of any fraud or direct personal gain, our Review has identified a number of instances where information was seemingly deliberately withheld from, or mischaracterised to, Cabinet and a number of conflicts of interest and issues around BBB independence in relation to LBC. These findings reflect the concerns raised by the external auditor in RIPI2, who stated that, as a result of there being no properly executed contractual or loan documents in place, stated view of BBB as an independent company was open to challenge, and that the lawfulness of payments made to BBB in relation to the Project were called into question.”
“Despite the legal advice received recommending that governance and other structures be put in place that ensured BBB operated independently of LBC (to avoid unlawful behaviour over state aid, procurement), we note that in the following areas, BBB and LBC were not acting independently of one another and the governance structures set out in the delegated decision document were not implemented.”
“From interviews with LBC staff outlining the decision-making processes that existed at LBC at the time, it appears that Ms Negrini had ultimate responsibility for the decision to recommend BBB to the Project. We have not identified any formal documented decision detailing the rationale for this decision or the basis on which it was made and we were unable to confirm this with Ms Negrini”
“The way the Project was structured meant that BBB was subject to substantial commercial risk, as the Project was only viable as part of the College Green scheme. It should also be made clear that as BBB was wholly owned and wholly funded by LBC, LBC alone bore the full risk of any failed development projects undertaken by BBB.”
“BBB was ultimately wholly funded by LBC loans. This differed from the legal advice contained in the 16 March 2015 Cabinet report58 as outlined in 3.2 which set out several considerations relating to the anything that could create or reinforce a relationship of subordination or dependency between the Development Company and the Council should be avoided The fact that LBC did not follow the legal advice contained in the Cabinet report or the legal advice obtained from Pinsent Mason (see section 3.2.1) we remain of the view that the independence of Brick by Brick is open to challenge ensured that its own legal advice was followed.”
“Several LBC staff have told Kroll in interview that the BBB team was, in practice, treated as an extension of LBC itself rather than as a structurally and operationally independent third party. From January 2016 until June 2018, BBB was staffed primarily by LBC Officers that were seconded to the company.”
“Our review has however identified that at these points in time, the £30m investment reported to Cabinet appears to have been little more than a figure that LBC wished to spend”
3.3 Development of Project budget, scope and estimated completion date
“Our review has however identified that at these points in time, the £30m investment reported to Cabinet appears to have been little more than a figure that LBC wished to spend. It had been derived from a core scope of works which did not comprise a tested design, and existing estimates were significantly above this figure. This information was not clearly communicated to Cabinet.”
3.4 Governance of the Project
“In practice, governance and control of the Project at an LBC Officer level was concentrated within a small group of individuals within LBC from the Executive Leadership Team, from Finance and Resources and Place directorates. These individuals often fulfilled a number of different roles across the various governance structures.”
3.5 Lack of robust reports to Cabinet / Council
“We have identified a number of instances where formal reports to Members were not full and frank or lacked sufficient detail,”
“The impact of the Project overspend on LBC was not always reported accurately by officers to Cabinet and Scrutiny and Overview. Firstly, our review has identified references (see below) by LBC Officers to the fact that the overspend did not have a financial impact on LBC itself, and was a BBB issue (which is contrary to one of the key reasons LBC incorporated BBB, namely to obtain distributions of its profits, see section 3.2). As LBC was the sole shareholder and sole funder of BBB, any impact on BBB’s profits would ultimately impact LBC.”
“By the end of 2018, several senior LBC Officers were aware of the budget overrun, but also failed to report this to Cabinet”
3.6 Conclusion
“Throughout 2018, more and more senior Officers at LBC and Mr Lacey as Managing Director of BBB, became aware of the fact that the Project was going to go over the 2016 Cabinet agreed budget of £30m. However this overspend appears not to have been formally reported to Cabinet. By the end of 2018, several senior LBC Officers were aware of the budget overrun, but also failed to report this to Cabinet.”
“Ms Negrini was notified of the Project overspend in September 2018 and failed to ensure that this was reported publicly at that time:”
“Our Review also found that certain Members (Cllrs Butler, Hall, Godfrey and Newman (all LAB) in particular) received frequent updates and briefings from LBC Officers. As stated above, while we are not able to conclude comprehensively on whether they knew the full extent of the issues related to the Project, we know that the Project was discussed at these briefings, as detailed in the body of the report. We also note that because there was no formal reporting mechanism on the Project specifically, there was no platform for the full Council to be made aware of the issues with the Project apart from the very high-level business plan.”
5.7 Conclusions
“Initial cost estimates presented by KWA in June 2010, based on specifications put forward by LBC at the time, estimated that different iterations of the” Project would cost between £40 and £70 million. Despite this, in 2011/12 LBC decided to commit £27 million to the Project in its Capital Programme over the proceeding five years, £13million short of KWA’s lowest initial estimates.”
6.8 Conclusions
“We have identified omissions in the documents provided to the November 2015 Scrutiny and Overview Committee by Ms Negrini (then Executive Director of Place) that meant there was a lack of clarity in decision making”
“Our Review also found that certain Members (Cllrs Butler, Hall, Godfrey and Newman (all LAB) in particular) received frequent updates and briefings from LBC Officers”
“Instead of squeezing businesses they should scrap wasteful spending if they want to fix their finances.”
The Sun and Mail reported recently that Croydon Council is considering charging drivers to use their free company parking spaces.
The proposal is to implement the workplace parking levy in Croydon, and impose it on businesses with 11 or more privately owned spaces. The scheme is intended to reduce the use of private vehicles and raise revenue for our (de facto) bankrupt borough.
Benjamin Elks, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance summed this proposal up by saying “Instead of squeezing businesses they should scrap wasteful spending if they want to fix their finances.”
“Just as people are returning to offices the worst thing Croydon could do is put people off going back to the town centre with more tax”
As any visitor to Croydon town centre will be aware, the Whitgift Centre once the heart of the borough is hollowed out, and many offices have closed. Many people no longer visit the town centre due to the lack of shops and evening entertainment, and the ongoing problem of crime.
Just as people are returning to offices the worst thing Croydon could do is put people off going back to the town centre with more tax.
Perhaps as an alternative the council should have cut more unnecessary spending.
“There is no more expensive thing than a free gift”
Borough of Culture
As I’ve written about before between April 2023 and March 2024, Croydon was the London Borough of Culture. For which the council committed to spending £975,000, with £1,350,000 coming from the GLA, and £1,900,000 expected from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage.
Even for the money funded by other agencies this is still taxpayer funds being wasted away on what, posters at train stations? I can’t remember much else. Whether you prefer the Japanese proverb “There is nothing more expensive than something free” or French renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne’s, “There is no more expensive thing than a free gift”, you can be sure that Croydon council taxpayers picked up costs for events even when supposedly ‘funded’ by other agencies.
When you see your council tax rise 15%, flat income tax allowances erode your earnings, local services reduce and winter fuel payments for pensioners go, remember those posters about the Borough of Culture. You can also decide if these payments from the councils “Borough of Culture” cost centre were a good use of your taxes.
Total funds over £500 paid out by Croydon Council for “Borough of Culture” £2,527,404.02.
Table of vendors paid over £1000.
Vendor Name
Total Payments May22 – May24
Redacted
£428,787.70
Stanley Arts
£266,875.39
London Mozart Players
£145,762.50
Turf Projects_
£145,000.00
White Label Publishing Ltd
£136,468.60
Talawa Theatre Company
£136,000.00
Think Events (London) Ltd
£121,551.67
BH Live Ltd
£107,500.00
Savvy Theatre
£73,500.00
Four Communications Ltd
£65,597.66
The Brit School
£65,000.00
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus
£60,628.00
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.
£50,750.00
Croydon Town Centre Bid
£45,000.00
Dance Umbrella
£45,000.00
Theatre – Rites
£42,000.00
Scanners Inc
£41,000.00
Zoo Co Theatre Ltd
£35,497.31
Apsara Arts
£32,475.00
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£31,309.05
Boundless Theatre
£30,000.00
Contemporary Dance Trust LTD
£29,000.00
STRANGE CARGO ARTS COMPANY LIMITED
£28,410.00
CR34 t/a Mr Fox
£28,000.00
Achates Philanthropy Limited
£22,725.00
Croydon Pride Ltd
£20,000.00
Sound Intervention Limited
£13,920.00
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC
£13,600.00
Llama Digital Ltd
£11,520.00
4 Wise Monkeys Ltd T/A Light Up Trails
£11,422.00
Bold Mellon Collective C.I.C.
£10,500.00
Profile Security Services Ltd
£10,395.52
Beeja
£10,000.00
YeahPod Music
£10,000.00
New Addington Peoples’ Carnival
£10,000.00
Designblock Studio Ltd
£9,895.00
Sysco Productions Ltd
£9,793.00
ATMA
£9,700.00
Premm Design Limited
£8,911.50
Jonathan Samuels T/A Samprojects
£8,475.40
The Young Urban Arts Foundation Limited
£7,790.00
Anglia Sign Casting ltd
£7,385.50
HURLYBURLY THEATRE
£6,750.00
Worldbeaters LTD
£6,690.00
CLUB SODA_
£6,590.00
Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited
£6,000.00
Learn to Dream Ltd
£5,511.00
E-People.Com Ltd
£5,100.00
London Road Business Ltd
£5,000.00
Croydon with Talent Ltd
£5,000.00
Good Wolf People Ltd
£5,000.00
Tiny Productions
£4,760.00
LYNNEBEC COLLECTIVE CIC
£4,700.00
Norwood JunKAction
£4,500.00
Drum the Bass
£3,800.00
Cat and Hutch
£3,760.00
Tribal Entertainment Limited t/a the Romano Sidoli consultancy
£3,750.00
QWERKY ENTERTAINMENT LTD
£3,320.00
Finesse Foreva Ltd
£3,300.00
Pif-Paf Theatre Ltd
£3,290.00
BH Live Enterprises Ltd
£3,018.75
Hoggs Hospitality Ltd
£3,000.00
Graeme Miall t/a One Tree
£3,000.00
LadyLaird
£2,500.00
Digital Drama Productions Ltd
£2,250.00
ATELIER ARZU LIMITED
£2,120.00
Paul Hudson Associates
£2,100.00
The Enriched Kids CIC
£2,000.00
SDNA LTD
£2,000.00
Zip Design Ltd
£1,950.00
Rap Therapy
£1,950.00
Giant Cheese Limited
£1,847.00
Studio Scamps ltd
£1,650.00
Bainbridge Conservation Ltd.
£1,616.00
Autistic Community Hub CIC
£1,200.00
Vauxhall City Farm Limited
£1,188.50
Reaching Higher
£1,100.00
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£1,084.00
“When you see your council tax rise 15%, flat income tax allowances erode your earnings, local services reduce and winter fuel payments for pensioners go, remember those posters about the Borough of Culture”
In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.
Mike Swadling gave an update on Croydon Council and his speech is below.
“Croydon is 29th on the list of highest real terms increase at 114%. We are paying well over double the real terms rate we were 1993″
We are the Croydon Constitutionalists. Constitutionalists signifies that we believe in the principles of English constitutional government through electoral politics, and the Croydon part is self-evident we are a local organisation. So, 18 months into a new Croydon council led by a new executive mayor what’s happening in our town?
Firstly, let’s take a little step back in time. The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) has published data showing that of the 450 local authorities that have continually existed since the Council Tax was first introduced in 1993, Croydon is 29th on the list of highest real terms increase at 114%. We are paying well over double the real terms rate we were 1993. We are still de facto bankrupt and we are paying through the nose for it.
“Croydon was one of 47 councils, about 10%, who failed to submit accounts on time. I get that this is doing less, but can it really be called better?”
In an interview in August Croydon’s chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, gave some encouraging words when she said: “Our ambition is to become an efficient council – to deliver essential services well, offer value for money, to listen to the people of Croydon, and simply do what we say we will do. So how do we get there? We must do less, better”
Fine words, but what have we seen in practice. To quote: “Croydon council in South London paid 21 staff six-figure salaries last year. Its top earner was chief executive Katherine Kerswell on £192,474.”
I took this information from a June article in the Daily Express. Not able to take it from the TPA’s Town Hall Rich list report as Croydon was one of 47 councils, about 10%, who failed to submit accounts on time. I get that this is doing less, but can it really be called better?
I tried to verify this data on the council’s website as I should be able to. If anyone cares to search it and can find a decent list, please send me the link. Eventually I found a list of job titles listed in an unclear format in a PDF file on the site which is I suppose meeting their statutory requirement.
Again, I get that this is Croydon Council doing less but is it really doing it better? Worse still whist 21 is down on the 29 roles paid over £100K the council had last year; it is up on the 19 roles the year before. Last year was a year of transition and I believe not all these roles overlapped, so it appears, and the lack of clear publications make this hard to see, that top end spending at the council is back on the increase.
“spending public funds on arts that are not viable commercially or via voluntary donations as the council has been doing for years, is no less of a waste of money when it comes from someone else’s funding stream”
Croydon is the London Borough of Culture for 2023. As part of this they are committed to spending £522,500 in 2022/23, and £452,500 in 2023/24. Additionally, £1,350,000 will come from the GLA, and £1,900,000 is expected from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage.
I believe spending public funds on arts that are not viable commercially or via voluntary donations as the council has been doing for years, is no less of a waste of money when it comes from someone else’s funding stream.
“Of the £623,000 spent on the London Borough of Culture in that time, £34K went to Redacted, what are they hiding from us?”
As part of this in the last 4 months Croydon Council has published figures of Borough of Culture spending which include £113K that went to Think Events (London) Ltd, £75K went to Stanley Arts, £67K to White Label Publishing Ltd, £42K to Theatre – Rites, and £39K to London Mozart Players, I could go on and on. Of the £623,000 spent on the London Borough of Culture in that time, £34K went to Redacted, what are they hiding from us?
“in 4 months £623,000 of taxpayers’ money spent not feeding needy families, not boosting our town centre, not providing social services for the most vulnerable, but on painted Giraffes and non-commercially viable arts”
May I remind you this is in the last 4 months that data has been published for, May to July. This is 4 months, not one year, not over the two-year programme. That is in 4 months £623,000 of taxpayers’ money spent not feeding needy families, not boosting our town centre, not providing social services for the most vulnerable, but on painted Giraffes and non-commercially viable arts.
Yes, things are better than 18 months ago. We are no longer haemorrhaging money through Brick by Brick, and we are slowly unwinding the commercial property failures of the last administration. But when it comes to transparency and wise use of public funds, it’s hard to argue they are doing things better at Croydon Council.
