Ex fire chief Oliver Lee 'overstepped powers' and broke rules, says new report

The ousted interim chief at West Midlands Fire Service, Oliver Lee, 'breached rules' and 'overstepped his powers' when he suspended a statutory officer, brought in former work colleagues to senior roles without following open recruitment procedures and postponed a scrutiny meeting, auditors have found.

Mr Lee, a former Royal Marine colonel, is said to have acted outside of rules set out in the Constitution of the Fire Authority, the service's governing body, during his eight-month tenure, the report claims. He was subsequently suspended, then resigned his position, asked to be reinstated, but was ultimately let go during a bizarre series of events.

External auditors from Grant Thornton told the Fire Authority his actions were among a series of governance weaknesses and failings at the beleaguered service. In an immediate riposte, Mr Lee described the report and its findings as 'flawed' and 'dangerously misleading', and strongly disputed elements of it, claiming he acted always to 'safeguard West Midlands Fire Service.'

READ MORE: West Midlands Fire Service failed to check up on 'faked' qualification of former chief

In a statement he said: "All decisions were taken with immense care and total transparency in the face of hugely difficult and worrying circumstances for the organisation and its people. Moreover, they were multilaterally taken based on broad discussions and the evaluation of multiple risks, to include on each occasion with the (then) Chair of the Fire Authority (Greg Brackenridge, who has since quit his role and was later suspended by the Labour Party over claims around his military service.)

"I and other senior colleagues dispute the Value for Money report. It is one sided and lacks any context which makes it partial and dangerously misleading." He has also made claims of personal bias against him, and has privately indicated that he is pursuing redress against the fire service.

READ THE FULL STORY OF OLIVER LEE'S EXTRAORDINARY DEPARTURE HERE

Avtar Sohail, of auditors Grant Thornton, told fire authority members this week (Monday November 26) that the external auditors' findings, set out in a Value for Money report, highlighted multiple 'weaknesses' that had come to light around governance issues, some dating back to 2022, others more recent. Three of seven issues uncovered in the report related to a failure to properly vet the qualifications of former chief fire officer, not named but known to be Wayne Brown, who had claimed to have an MBA degree when he did not.

Also criticised were failures to check up on the qualifications of secondees from other services, and to ensure DBS police checks were always carried out for serving staff. A series of recommendations were made, and were noted by the authority.

The first 'weakness' that impugned the actions of Mr Lee came when he suspended a statutory officer on May 27 this year, Bank Holiday Monday. He did so in consultation with the authority's then chair, Cllr Brackenridge, said the report.

The officer involved - not named in the report - was suspended pending an independent investigation, and on the grounds of urgency, by Mr Lee. However, said the auditor's report, the Constitution at the time stated that a statutory officer could only be suspended with the agreement of a full, quorate Fire Authority meeting. This process was not followed so amounted to a 'contravention of the Constitution'.

A month later the authority met and agreed to change the Constitution to allow for the head of service - Mr Lee - and the chair of the authority to be able to suspend a statutory officer using emergency powers on urgent safety or wellbeing grounds, or to 'preserve the integrity of an investigation'. It also allowed for the monitoring officer, in consultation with the chair of the authority, to be able to suspend the head of service in the same circumstances.

These changes came after the fact, however, so there was a clear breach by Mr Lee over the suspension of the officer, explained Mr Sohail. The suspension was subsequently discussed at a full meeting of the fire authority, when auditors 'expressed (the) view that the process of suspension was a breach of the Constitution and that members should consider whether the ratification was appropriate'." Despite that, members 'unanimously agreed to ratify the decision (to suspend).' The decision has since been extended three times and the officer remains suspended pending the outcome of investigations.

The report states that Mr Lee did not have the power to 'unilaterally suspend a statutory officer'. The situation amounted to 'a significant weakness' and was subsequently the subject of a Section 5 notice, a legal device used to register significant concerns about breaches in rules.

A second 'significant weakness' arose around the appointment of an interim Section 151 officer to meet statutory responsibilities in the aftermath of the suspension. Mr Lee brought in a finance expert, initially on a consultancy basis, who he had previously worked with and rated highly. The officer was subsequently appointed on an interim basis by the Fire Authority as commercial director. She later assumed the statutory role of Section 151 officer.

POLL: Will you be shopping in the Black Friday sales this year?

However, according to the auditor's report, there were question marks over whether correct process was followed in the initial appointment, and in the subsequent designation of them as S151 officer. Investigations found that the decision to approve the new S151 officer was properly done in line with the constitution.

However, the newly created post of commercial director that she was appointed to was 'the equivalent of a brigade manager in seniority' so should have gone through the appointments, standards and appeals committee of the fire authority, claims the report. The salary paid for the role, of over £100,000, was also not approved in the right way. "Given this was a direct appointment by the former interim CEO, it also means that this did not go through an open recruitment process and therefore no other candidates could have applied for the role," say auditors.

"This was a significant override of control over the recruitment process," ruled the auditors.

Mr Lee while in interim charge also brought in another former work colleague as interim assistant chief executive, filling a vacant post. This was done in line with procedures, though was also a role that was not advertised or open to other candidates.

Mr Lee and two senior interim officers, Carolyn Symcox and Chris Payne, later signed a letter of no confidence in the Fire Authority, its chair and its monitoring officer Satinder Sahota. The two interims have both since resigned, though Ms Symcox remains at work and remains S151 officer.

In a further 'significant weakness' it appeared that the suspended officer's original designation as a statutory officer back in 2023, under the previous chief fire officer, was also done outside of the Constitution. This was a further breach.

Mr Lee is also called out in the report over the postponement of a meeting of the authority's audit and risk committee. Due to be held on Monday July 22, it was postponed the day before (Sunday 21). The decision was agreed between the interim CEO, and the chairs of the authority and its audit and risk committee.

However, say auditors, the 'process of postponement' was not appropriately followed, as the monitoring officer Mr Sahota was not consulted, in line with the Constitution. This was a breach.

In his riposte to the report, Mr Lee said the postponement occurred against a backdrop of safety concerns for members of the authority, and in light of immediate 'threats' received via social media, and subsequently discussed with the police. "The priority was to ensure that the Audit and Risk Committee meeting could proceed without risk to its attendees," said Mr Lee, who expressed his frustration that the context of the postponement was not included in the report to members.

In his reply, which he had asked to be read to members at the meeting, but it was not, he claimed he was offered the 'worthless' opportunity to comment on a very early draft of the report but had instead asked to respond once it was in a completed form, only to have that request denied. He claimed that 'personal biases' had motivated the details of the auditors' report.

Regulators from HM Inspectorate of Constabularies and Fire and Rescue Authorities are currently investigating the service as part of a pre-planned inspection process. The service is also subject to a separate 'best value' inspection of its governance, under the oversight of the Home Office and the Government's Minister of Fire and Policing.