The former boss of Lilac Sky authorised payments of hundreds of thousands of pounds to his companies after stepping down by accessing trust bank accounts on his phone, government documents allege. Schools Week can reveal the bombshell allegations behind a decision to ban Trevor Averre-Beeson from managing schools. Trevor Averre Beeson Averre-Beeson founded and was chief executive of the Lilac Sky Schools Trust, which at its height had ten schools. It shut in 2017 following allegations of financial impropriety. The government has refused to publish its full investigation into what happened, but an It is one of the biggest academy scandals to date. Unusually, Averre-Beeson鈥檚 prohibition notice also lacked an explanation for the decision. But Schools Week has been given a detailed summary of the evidence, heard during a tribunal last year, by the Department for Education. It sets out the full allegations that led to the ban, including that Averre-Beeson: Allegedly agreed a five-year, 拢1 million contract with the trust the day after stepping down as chief executive. The deal was authorised by the new CEO Chris Bowler, Averre-Beeson鈥檚 friend and 鈥渂usiness partner鈥 that he recommended for the role weeks earlier Allegedly accessed trust bank accounts 鈥 after supposedly stepping down 鈥 to 鈥渁uthorise and make鈥 payments of more than 拢620,000 to his own companies. He was paid nearly 拢1,000 a day as a consultant under one contract Allegedly used more than 拢80,000 grant funding meant for his trust to 鈥渕aintain cash flow鈥 at his private company. Founder denies wrongdoing Averre-Beeson denied wrongdoing and said some elements were untrue. He accused the government of 鈥渟tretching鈥 facts to fit a 鈥渇alse narrative鈥. Micon Metcalfe In a statement to Schools Week, he said the government had not published the documents because 鈥渢hey know them to be flawed, libellous, defamatory and without substance鈥. Publishing the allegations was 鈥渓azy, shoddy journalism which is no more than a defamatory character assassination鈥. The documents show the case was referred to the police in 2016. They took no further action. But documents state the police said the decision was 鈥渘ot taken lightly鈥 given the 鈥渢he wholly unethical nature鈥 of some aspects of the case. Micon Metcalfe, a school finance expert, said the allegations were 鈥渟hocking鈥. They showed 鈥渢here was no attempt to set up appropriate governance structures or appropriate financial controls鈥 at the trust. DfE had concerns over ‘financial control’ The documents given to Schools Week include the government and Averre-Beeson鈥檚 witness statements. They formed part of a tribunal after Averre-Beeson appealed his ban. But he dropped the appeal midway through the hearing. Lawyers for the government said this 鈥済ives credence鈥 that the ban was 鈥渁bsolutely justified鈥. The government first contacted Lilac Sky over 鈥渃oncerns relating to financial control and governance鈥 between late 2014 and March 2015, documents allege. The trust was sponsored by Averre-Beeson’s school improvement company, Lilac Sky Schools Limited. The company was paid to provide services to the trust. In April 2015, the government 鈥渙rdered鈥 the trust to cease transactions with this company and Lilac Sky Outstanding Education Services, also run by Averre-Beeson. This was to 鈥渆nsure future compliance鈥 with academy rules, annual accounts for that year stated. Averre-Beeson resigned as chief executive, chair and a member of the trust 鈥渙n or around鈥 March 1, 2015. He remained a trustee until May, though he claimed in his evidence this was an administrative delay. The ‘secret’ five-year, 拢1m contract Also on March 1, documents allege he agreed a 拢1 million, five-year contract to work as a 鈥渇reelance agent鈥 through a new company called Trevor Averre Beeson Ltd. The government alleges Beeson did so 鈥渋n the knowledge鈥 the contract broke rules requiring a formal tender and board approval. The deal was signed off by Bowler, his 鈥渇riend and business partner鈥. Averre-Beeson had recommended that Bowler succeed him as chief executive weeks before. He too has been banned from managing schools. Chris Bowler Responding to these allegations, Averre-Beeson said the contract, which included VAT, amounted to 拢200,000 a year, and was for services provided by at least three other people. He added it was the responsibility of the new chief executive to ensure trust procedures were followed. He also disputed claims that the government contacted the trust over finance concerns before he stepped down, or that it ordered the trust to stop paying his companies. 鈥淭he truth was that I took the decision to try and separate the business of the trust from the company [Lilac Sky Schools Ltd] because I recognised that the political approach to academy trusts had changed.” However, Metcalfe said while 鈥渢here may be questions about the DfE鈥檚 due diligence of academy trust sponsors, the interconnected structure was at odds with all the guidance signposted at the time of incorporation鈥. “It was a failure of proper governance and oversight from the start,鈥 she said. Made ‘拢620k of payments to his own firms鈥 (after stepping down) Despite the trust supposedly having cut payments to companies run by their founder, documents allege 21 such transactions between May 2015 and mid-2016. They totalled more than 拢600,000, with individual payments as high as 拢250,000, and were described as “funds transfer” or “regular payment”. This was despite “significant assurances” to the government in April 2015 “around management of conflicts of interest and regularity of use of funds鈥, documents allege. Despite stepping down, Averee-Beeson 鈥渃ontinued to access trust bank accounts, authorise transactions, and make payments鈥 totalling at least 拢623,725 to his companies. He had 鈥渘o just cause to access or make payments from trust bank accounts, demonstrating a lack of integrity regarding public funds鈥. Payments were for 鈥渉is own benefit鈥. Under one contract, Averre-Beeson鈥檚 day rate was nearly 拢1,000. ‘Unwise’ to access bank, says ex-leader In his statement, Averre-Beeson said he 鈥渁ccepted鈥 that 鈥渁ccessing and actioning payments from the trust bank account was unwise鈥. But he 鈥渄id not intend to, nor did I in practice, do anything wrong via that access鈥. Trust staff 鈥渋nformally approved my continued operation of the account鈥 as they knew he was 鈥渃ompletely trustworthy and functioned with integrity鈥, he said. Some payments 鈥渨eren鈥檛 easy鈥 for the finance director to make. The trust account was in a 鈥渟uite of accounts鈥 that included his personal, private and savings accounts. 鈥淚t was only the hysteria stirred up by the ESFA investigators that led colleagues to doubt their judgment and mine in this matter,鈥 he alleged. Documents show that in February 2016, Averre-Beeson emailed the trust鈥檚 bank to say 鈥渨e are being audited鈥 by the government. “We have realised that I might still be a signatory on the bank accounts whilst I am no longer the chief executive or director.鈥 He asked the bank to 鈥減ut in process my removal鈥. In his statement, Averre-Beeson claimed he had asked on several occasions to be removed before the investigation was 鈥渆ven known about鈥. He said it was a 鈥渢ransitional matter which was going to be rectified鈥, but because an 鈥渦nknown person鈥 had 鈥渄ecided my success as a school leader was some kind of fakery. Therefore I was dishonest鈥 It is amazing how far decent people will go to discredit an innocent person, when they believe they are right.鈥 拢1.27m paid to his companies A government investigation into the trust has never been published. But the documents reveal key findings from a financial management and governance review, launched in January 2016. Its findings 鈥渟uggest鈥 previous assurances given by the trust over conflicts of interests to the then regional schools commissioner, Dominic Herrington, 鈥渨ere deliberately misleading (in substance)鈥. Some issues raised by government also 鈥渁ppeared鈥 not to have been resolved 鈥渋n any real manner鈥, the documents state. An example cited was assurances that transactions with the 鈥渃ommercial arm鈥 of Lilac Sky would end. But the 鈥渟ame transactions continued with a new company鈥 set up by Averre-Beeson in May 2015, it is alleged. And despite resigning as a trustee, Averre-Beeson 鈥渃ontinued to attend board meetings potentially acting as a de facto trustee鈥. The review also found 鈥渁lmost鈥 all trust members, directors and senior managers had links to Averre-Beeson鈥檚 sponsor company. At one point, governance roles were held by his wife, daughters, sister, paid consultants at his company and his personal assistant. ‘Significant irregularity’ Documents allege 鈥渆xtremely poor oversight and scrutiny鈥 and 鈥渟ignificant irregularity鈥 around related-party transactions. Some lacked 鈥渁ny formal procurement鈥, records of decisions and in many cases had 鈥渘o contract in place鈥. A 2015 contract provided 鈥減referential terms鈥 to Averre-Beeson 鈥渢o the detriment鈥 of the trust, the witness statement alleges. But Averre-Beeson said in his witness statement the government鈥檚 case 鈥渃asts doubt over the integrity of my family members once again, with no evidence鈥. The estimated spend by the trust with Averre-Beeson鈥檚 companies in the three years to 2015 was 鈥渋n the region of 拢1.27 million鈥, documents state. This excluded spending on contractors 鈥渃onnected to鈥 Averre-Beeson. Averre-Beeson was paid 鈥渃irca 拢16-拢18k per month (plus significant expenses) invoiced through the sponsor on an off-payroll basis鈥 until the government 鈥渋ntervention鈥 in 2015, documents claim. There was 鈥渘o formal recruitment鈥 for Bowler as chief executive in 2015, nor Averre-Beeson’s wife Jane Fielding as managing director. Despite a 拢100,000 salary, the review found 鈥渓imited evidence of [the] MD role being undertaken鈥. Averre-Beeson said the claim about his wife was 鈥渁 libellous slur鈥 and 鈥減ejorative hearsay that is vindictive and without any factual evidential backing鈥. She oversaw the trust schools, liaised and advised heads, provided training and coaching, took part in Ofsted reviews and was chair of governors at three schools. Averre-Beeson did not provide a specific response to the alleged findings from the government review. 鈥業mproperly retained鈥 trust cash as private firm 鈥榗ashflow鈥 Documents also allege Averre-Beeson 鈥渋mproperly retained鈥 more than 拢80,000 of grant funding paid to one of his companies by East Sussex County Council, but meant for the trust. He 鈥渁ttempted to legitimise the holding of those funds by inappropriately negotiating staged payments when full payment should have been made with immediate effect鈥. In September 2015, Averre-Beeson emailed the trust to ask if the cash could be paid back 鈥渙ver the next 4 months at 拢20k-ish a month 鈥 just to maintain the cash flow?鈥. Averre-Beeson said the allegation was 鈥渨orthy of a social media conspiracy theory鈥. He said the repayment schedule was agreed with the trust, and there was no personal advantage. 鈥淚t was done for cash flow purposes 鈥 which is a normal business practice. The company was employing over 100 people so maintaining the business viability was important.鈥 ‘Lack of probity’ He added that emails quoted as evidence 鈥渞ead very clearly to me as open conversations with the finance manager trying to untangle the links between the company and the trust, which were in the first two years [of the trust] basically run as one organisation鈥. Another allegation is he 鈥渁cted with a lack of probity鈥 over a failure to repay nearly 拢90,000 that he had 鈥渇acilitated鈥 to one of his companies, which he had 鈥渘o reasonable cause to access鈥. Averre-Beeson said the payment was mistakenly made by the trust, but, by the time it was communicated to him, the private company was 鈥渦nder a great deal of pressure鈥 and later became insolvent. The 鈥渄irect consequence鈥 of the 鈥渙ne-sided, incomplete and unpublished investigation鈥 into the trust was that his three companies closed. Monies that 鈥渨ould have been repaid to the trust couldn鈥檛 be and then the secretary of state in this allegation blames me for the destruction that her staff set out on. 鈥淔inding new business became impossible鈥 it is plain that I did not seek personal gain. Indeed the very opposite is true. My personal circumstances were decimated. My work, my marriage, my family, my life.鈥 Unpaid VAT led to insolvency investigation referral After resigning, Averre-Beeson also 鈥渃aused鈥 a VAT-only invoice for 拢115,046 to be raised by one of his companies to the trust. 鈥淗e then accessed a trust bank account without authority and transferred this amount from the trust to his company prior to the authorisation of the invoice,鈥 DfE documents allege. The witness statement said 拢23,000 of VAT was owed to HMRC at the point the company was liquidated. In December 2018, the ESFA made a referral to the insolvency service, stating 鈥渃oncern鈥 that neither the government nor the trust was notified of the winding-up of Lilac Sky Education Limited or listed as creditors. 鈥淲e are also interested in any on-going recovery action being contemplated, or sought, in relation to that asset.” VAT bill ‘went unpaid Averre-Beeson said VAT repayments were 鈥渋nsisted upon鈥 by HMRC over an error after the private company鈥檚 schools joined the trust. His accountant 鈥渘egotiated that the company paid HMRC the VAT in instalments, which HMRC agreed to. Those instalments were paid until the last when the company became insolvent. 鈥淚 absolutely deny any wrongdoing in this allegation鈥 Again, I did not personally gain in any way whatsoever, particularly as the company became insolvent. 鈥淥f the five allegations, this one feels to be the most wilfully brought or otherwise misunderstood. The facts have been stretched to meet the needs of the embedded false narrative established by the initial ESFA investigators.鈥 The Insolvency Service said in May 2020 it was 鈥渦nable to pursue its investigation鈥 as a statutory time limit for company director disqualifications had lapsed. The overall case was also referred to the police in July 2016. But eight months later, it told the government no further action would be taken. However, the serious crime directorate of Essex Police said the decision had 鈥渘ot been taken lightly, in view of the wholly unethical nature and relationship between鈥 the trust and Averre-Beeson鈥檚 companies, the documents allege. Averre-Beeson said the government鈥檚 case 鈥渄oes not establish any evidence from the police referral that I acted dishonestly or exclusively in my own interest鈥. The Insolvency Service said it was 鈥渘ot able to comment on any investigatory activity鈥. Gagging clauses, secret deals and 鈥榤anaging media risk鈥 Documents show Averre-Beeson refused to attend an interview as part of the government鈥檚 investigation. This was because officials wanted him to sign a confidentiality agreement in exchange for sight of documents he was to be quizzed on. Investigators also considered a behind-the-scenes deal. Averre-Beeson offered to 鈥減rovide a declaration that he will take no further part in running an academy or an independent school鈥. In exchange, no ban would be published. But this was 鈥渃onsidered inappropriate鈥. One reason was that he would not appear on the Disclosure and Barring Service鈥檚 banned list. Prohibition notices are published online, and normally with details of why the person was banned. However, the notice published for Averre-Beeson simply said the ban was over 鈥渋nappropriate鈥 conduct. Tribunal documents show the government published Averre Beeson鈥檚 ban in a 鈥渟treamlined format鈥 to 鈥渢ake into account the need to manage ongoing risks of media exposure鈥. DfE breaks promise to publish investigation The government has long promised to publish the Lilac Sky investigation after enforcement action had been taken. However, last month it instead published an investigation 鈥渙utcome鈥 report. Rather than full findings, it ran to just three pages 鈥 with little new information. The DfE said this week that it would not publish the report, but would not say why, nor answer any other detailed questions. On why the investigation took so long, the documents state the investigations team of about 10 staff were tasked with 鈥渙ther high-profile investigations鈥. Covid also 鈥渋nfluenced the pace鈥.