Listen to this story Members can listen to an AI-generated audio version of this article. 1.0x Audio narration uses an AI-generated voice. 0:00 0:00 Become a member to listen to this article Subscribe PeopleCert is seeking to recover almost £3 million in bonuses paid to former City & Guilds chief executive Kirstie Donnelly and finance chief Abid Ismail after an internal investigation concluded the payments were “unauthorised”. The Greek-owned awarding organisation announced today that it will pursue the pair over a total of £2.9 million in bonus payments allegedly approved without the knowledge or authorisation of PeopleCert, the City & Guilds board or the charity that previously owned the business. The move follows the dismissal of Donnelly and Ismail without financial settlement in April for alleged gross misconduct, after they received bonuses of £1.7 million and £1.2 million respectively shortly after PeopleCert’s acquisition of City & Guilds Limited (CGL) in October last year. But the pair hit back, denying the allegations and claiming they have evidence that both the buyer PeopleCert, seller City & Guilds and their advisers were “fully involved” in the structuring and approval of bonuses. According to PeopleCert, Donnelly and Ismail “directly authorised and paid bonuses” to themselves and other CGL staff, worth £5 million in total, “without authorisation” from the CGL board, PeopleCert or City & Guilds London Institute. Pay rises were also allegedly made without formal authorisation. A PeopleCert spokesperson said: “These payments were not brought to the attention of PeopleCert until December 2025, a month after they had been paid, and there was no provision, board resolution, or other binding instrument that authorised these payments. “It also found that salary increases for the [executive leadership team] and other colleagues were also made without formal authorisation from the CGL board or PeopleCert. “These actions were in direct breach of their duties and responsibilities as office holders and caused significant harm to the organisation’s reputation. “In the case of Kirstie Donnelly and Abid Ismail, we intend to take all action available to ensure the recovery of these amounts (£1.7 million and £1.2 million respectively) and will make appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities.” PeopleCert said other executives who received bonuses will also be asked to repay them in full. However, payments made to around 60 other staff members will be “ratified” by PeopleCert and “no attempt will be made recover the amounts, given the investigation’s conclusion that recipients were neither fully aware nor instrumental in the scheme”. The findings came from an investigation carried out by a committee of non-executive directors, led by Michael Milanovic, chair of PeopleCert subsidiary LanguageCert, with support from legal advisers Balfour+Manson. PeopleCert said a subsequent appeal process, led by CGL non-executive director Richard McCarthy CBE, did not uphold appeals against the dismissal decisions. The findings have been shared with the Charity Commission, which launched a statutory inquiry into City & Guilds in January following the sale of the historic charity’s commercial business. PeopleCert’s own investigation has also expanded to look at “allegations of manipulation of information” about the level of investment required to upgrade City & Guilds’ IT systems provided to bidders during the sale process. In a joint statement through their legal representatives, Donnelly and Ismail, who announced legal action against CGL in April, told FE Week the pair “categorically reject” CGL’s allegations. They called PeopleCert’s disciplinary process “fundamentally flawed and lacked the necessary independence”, insisting they will be “exonerated”. They said that in “due course” the pair will present evidence to the courts that “overwhelmingly demonstrates” all bonus payments were “approved, documented and implemented” as part of the transaction process. The spokesperson added: “It further shows that both the seller and the buyer, along with their advisers, were fully involved in the structuring and approval of the bonuses paid. “This evidence has also been provided to the other appropriate agencies, including the Charity Commission. “Our clients acted reasonably and honestly at all times. We therefore remain confident that they will be exonerated and that their dismissals will ultimately be found to have been unfair.” In an internal email this morning, seen by FE Week, PeopleCert boss Byron Nicolaides told City & Guilds staff the bonus issue has created “a challenging environment” for the business that he was now pleased to “draw a line under”. He said: “Whilst some will continue to voice their opposition to the private ownership of City & Guilds, we must remember some important context. “Our acquisition followed a fully intermediated, competitive process involving multiple international bidders, with PeopleCert selected as the preferred party as we offered the highest price and had significant experience of operating regulated products and services. “We also had the global scale, expertise, technology capability and investment commitment needed to develop the organisation for the long term.” He claimed that under its charity owner, City & Guilds had been loss-making for the previous eight years, was losing market share, had been issued regulatory fines for “failings of governance and technology control”, and did not have the ability to fund the “scale of transformation required”.
Philip Ellaway 15 June 2026 Some contradictory statements in the final paragraph. A key rationale for the sale of C&G’s commercial businesses was indeed Trustees’ awareness that the scale of investment required to transform its operations was beyond their capacity to fund from free cashflows. But to portray the organisation as loss making misreads the accounts, which are publicly available. Disappointing that FE Week, which has generally done a good job of reporting accurately on the sector, has fallen into the same trap as certain commentators on LinkedIn, claiming to be experts on sector history who appear not to have bothered to do basic research on the organisation’s origins, purpose, or what it was trying to achieve to fund both its commercial and charitable arms for a fast changing world.
Peter Marples 16 June 2026 The accounts for the year prior to the ‘take over’ paints a very positive picture – those of the words of Dame Anne and Donnelly so then to turn around and say the headwinds were massive. Also the assets of the organisation provided significant opportunity for leverage to fund its development, investment and future. But that isn’t the purpose of this article or the issues at hand. They are the allegations that people pocketed £m funded by either the proceeds or indeed by the purchaser without due authorisation. If that is the case, that is theft, pure and simple on a grand scale. Why would a buyer state that there was no authorisation if there was, it would only bring bad publicity to the organisation and that in itself would be damaging so as they say no smoke without fire and put simply it isn’t that difficult for the trustees to provide the minute for the bonuses to be authorised and publish it. The allegation there wasn’t anything and indeed certain trustees state they asked the question and were given an untruth. I know who i would believe and it isnt Donnelly
Dave Spart 17 June 2026 The expression “no smoke without fire” is true neither figuratively nor literally. I would have thought that somebody with your history would know better than to use it.
Malcolm Smith 5 July 2026 It never ceases to amaze me how much money that’s supposed to support education ends up in executive salaries and bonuses. When you see reports of a CEO earning over £500,000 and millions being paid out in bonuses, it’s hard not to question priorities. Meanwhile, tutors and lecturers at the coalface are working flat out, often struggling to make ends meet while trying to give students the best education possible. It feels like we’ve seen the same pattern across too many organisations: huge executive rewards while frontline services are told to do more with less. Whether it’s education, water companies or other public-facing bodies, the people delivering the service seem to be the last to benefit. If we’re serious about investing in education, more of the money should be reaching learners and the professionals who teach them, not disappearing into excessive pay and bonus packages.