Tribunal rules former Ujima chief lost his job because of misconduct
Kerr dismissal ‘not discrimination’
London & Quadrant Group has been cleared of racial discrimination in an employment tribunal brought by the former chief executive of Ujima Housing Association.
Keith Kerr was dismissed from his post by Ujima’s board on 15 January 2008 for gross misconduct, gross incompetence, and an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence. The next day Ujima’s £1 billion assets were transferred to L&Q in a deal brokered by the Housing Corporation.
The previous December, Ujima had become the first housing association to go bust following its attempt to enact an ambitious expansion plan dubbed ‘project Jerusalem’.
The plan’s financial assumptions were described to the tribunal as ‘incredible’ by David Montague, chief executive of L&Q. According to the trust’s analysis, Ujima suffered a loss of £28 million while implementing the project - the highest recorded in the history of the social housing sector.
Mr Kerr was appointed chief executive of Ujima on 16 January 2006 on an initial salary of £100,000, the tribunal heard. This was increased to £120,000 in June of the same year and then to £130,000 a month later under delegated powers operated by Sandra Ebanks, vice chair of Ujima’s human resources sub-committee.
Although Mr Kerr had never worked in a housing association before, he had been on Metropolitan Housing Trust’s board and chaired its audit committee.
He disputed Mr Montague’s financial assessment of project Jerusalem and had insisted during a disciplinary hearing that, as chief executive, ‘he did not bear ultimate responsibility for the financial position that Ujima had found itself in’, the tribunal judgement states.
But the tribunal found that the gap between the ‘aspirations’ of project Jerusalem and the ‘eventual reality’ was so substantial that it judged Mr Montague as right and described Mr Kerr’s projections as ‘always unrealistic’.
The tribunal panel dismissed all claims against L&Q. ‘The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant’s dismissal could begin to be said on the grounds of race, since there was no less favourable treated demonstrated by the claimant. The reason for the claimant’s dismissal related to his conduct,’ the judgement states.
Mr Kerr declined to comment.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (4)
kass | 30/10/2009 1:50 pm
Mr Kerr declined to comment.... Well, I dont... At the rate of his pay increases were going this guy would have cleaned up the whole public subsidy for himself in no time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Paton | 31/10/2009 1:58 am
"Gross misconduct" and "gross incompetence" may seem like strong language but don't quit cover this spectacular and egregious wreck. I'd call it delusional megalomania.
Ujima always was a ropey outfit. It treated its tenants with high-handed, often dictatorial, arrogance and handled its housing stock irresponsibly, leaving some of it empty for years. The places it left empty were sometimes in better condition than the ones where tenants had to endure appalling disrepair. Some of its officers were as much out of control as Keith Kerr and pursued vendettas against tenants who complained or sought help from advice organisations or local authorities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ujima Tenant | 15/04/2010 5:15 pm
It is clear Mr Jim Paton was not an Ujima tenant.
I had always received a much better service from Ujima staff than the service I have now receive from L&Q. Ujima staff helped during many difficult circumstances in my personal life. I felt secure while a Ujima tenant and now I feel threatened as a L&Q tenant - I have to accept that after 15 years housed by Ujima I have to consider that I might up spending the rest of my days living in the streets again.
There has also been a considerable lower of the standards in maintenance of the property since L&Q took over.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 15/04/2010 7:28 pm
Surely the only defence that Kerr could have presented regarding his sacking, given the litany of incompetence and maladminstration demonstrated, was the Ali G argument. Is it 'coz I is black? Surprising it didn't wash really, considering some the decisions the ETS has reached in recent years...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment