Croydon (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Tory Mayor Jason Perry and Croydon Council appear in High Court amid legal challenge over sudden closure of Access Croydon without prior notice.
The council’s £204,000 annual chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, stated in March that Access Croydon, the ground floor level location where the public could previously seek help with a variety of local services, will become No Access Croydon with just one working day’s notice.
The borough’s highest-paid official suddenly made it impossible to meet council employees in person at the council offices without an appointment.
“The changes to Access Croydon are part of the council’s action to protect local services for residents,”
Kerswell claimed.
One word best describes the situation at Fisher’s Folly: chaos. The staff was compelled to put up with Kerswell and Perry’s new appointments-only regime.
The homeless have been most negatively impacted by the removal of direct access to council officials. Many of them were redirected from the council offices to Croydon Central Library, where they must wait in line to use a public computer in order to make an “emergency” appointment.
In a letter to Mayor Perry and CEO Kerswell, over 30 borough-wide voluntary and charitable sector organizations demanded that the council offices be immediately reopened to the public. They claimed that the council was “denying residents access to vital support” by closing Access Croydon to anyone without an appointment.
The London Renters Union, the South Norwood Community Kitchen, the South West London Law Centre, Croydon BME Forum, Croydon Nightwatch, and Croydon Voluntary Action were among the signatories.
The Public Interest Law Centre has now taken up the case, requesting a Judicial Review of the council’s hasty and ill-considered decision to close Access Croydon after Kerswell and Perry ignored the letter.
According to the attorneys at PILC, their High Court lawsuit against Croydon Council “raises important issues about the modernization and digitisation of the services provided by local housing authorities.”
PILC says:
“Although local authorities hail digitisation as cost-effective and efficient, we argue that this change amounts to discrimination against those with limited literacy or nor internet access.”
Concerns have been raised by some in the third sector and charities over the council’s closing of Access Croydon, believing it is a calculated attempt to reduce expenses by making it more difficult for people to receive the assistance that the council is legally obligated to offer.
In the months following Access Croydon’s closure, SNCK has witnessed “a massive increase in the number of people coming in seeking housing support, from us and other local organisations,” according to Emma Gardiner of South Norwood Community Kitchen, one of the letter signatories supporting the Judicial Review against the council.
And Gardiner said:
“We’ve also seen an increase in the number of people able to get the support that they need from the council… a lot of that is what the council is legally obliged to provide.”
Gardner says that the closure of Access Croydon is a method of “gate-keeping” by the council which excludes the many people unable to use the internet or fill out online forms.
“What they are hoping is that less and less people will put in housing applications and therefore reducing the number of people they are having to support.
It’s only when [the council] is legally challenged that they seem to actually take notice and meet their legal duties and make sure everyone can access the services that they have a right to.”
What legal grounds are being used to challenge the Access Croydon closure?
The legal challenge to the closure of Access Croydon is primarily based on concerns that the closure denies vulnerable residents access to vital services and may breach the council’s statutory duties, particularly regarding homelessness and emergency support.
The closure, made abruptly and without consultation, limits face-to-face access to council staff, disadvantaged those without internet access or digital literacy, which the Public Interest Law Centre highlights as potential discrimination and failure to comply with legal obligations to provide accessible support.
The potential unlawfulness of restricting access to essential public services without proper notice or alternative arrangements.