Key Points
- Undisclosed Directorship by Councillor: Councillor Sue Sampson, who is the member of the Hounslow Council for Housing, did not disclose the fact that she is a director and shareholder of a property company called Cestrensis Limited.
- Different Name Used: Although the company uses the name Susan Lockyer for the director Cllr Sampson, it is claimed that there was no deliberate attempt at disguise since her name is known through past election records going back to 2018.
- Status of Company: Established in September 2025 with the aim of buying and letting out residential property, Cllr Sampson claims that the business never operated, earned any money, or owned any assets.
- Consequences: The councillors belonging to the opposition parties of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have called for her removal from the Cabinet, citing an example of previous similar incident involving former councillor Farhaan Rehman.
- Response of Leadership: Council Leader Shantanu Rajawat defended Cllr Sampson, calling it an “honest mistake” made due to a misunderstanding of inactive and non-paid directorships.
West London (West London Times) – October 7, 2026 – As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, uk/local/hounslow/">Hounslow Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Sue Sampson, is facing intense political pressure and questions regarding her failure to declare a directorship in a property-related firm. The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) revealed that Cllr Sampson did not list her position with Cestrensis Limited on her official register of interests, triggering fierce backlash from opposition politicians who are demanding her immediate removal from the Cabinet.
The controversy surrounds Cestrensis Limited, a company incorporated in September 2025, which lists Cllr Sampson as a director and shareholder under the name Susan Lockyer. Within the enterprise, Cllr Sampson owns between 25 and 49 per cent of the shares. While Hounslow Council’s constitution explicitly mandates that any unpaid directorships must be registered as a registrable interest, this association was omitted from public disclosures until the LDRS raised the issue.
As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, Cllr Sampson admitted that she did not declare the position because of a personal belief that inactive roles did not require reporting. Cllr Sampson stated to the LDRS: “I am a director and shareholder of Cestrensis Limited, where I am registered as Susan Lockyer. The company was incorporated in September 2025 and Companies House records my appointment as a director on 15 September 2025. Cestrensis has never traded or operated and has never received any income.” She further noted: “I had understood that, in those circumstances, it did not need to be included on my Register of Interests. I have sought guidance from the Monitoring Officer to ensure that my register was fully compliant with the Council’s requirements and will make any amendment that I am advised is necessary.”
When questioned regarding the purpose of the firm given its lack of commercial activity, Cllr Sampson explained that it was formed with the intention of purchasing, selling, and leasing residential property. However, she emphasized:
“The company never became active, never traded, never acquired any assets and never received any income. The proposed venture did not proceed.”
How Have Opposition Parties Reacted to the Omission?
The revelation has intensified scrutiny on the local Labour administration, arriving only months after a similar transparency breach involving a former colleague. Opposition leaders have seized upon the development to question governance standards within the council.
As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, Liberal Democrats Councillor Roger Crouch called on Council Leader Shantanu Rajawat to take decisive action against the housing lead. Councillor Crouch stated: “According to the council rules it is imperative that councillors act with integrity and maintain standards. Cllr Sampson failing to declare a directorship breaks the rules, and pending further investigation the Leader of the Council should remove her from the Cabinet.”
Echoing these sentiments, Conservative group leader Councillor Jack Emsley condemned the situation as emblematic of broader administrative fractures. As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, Councillor Emsley described the revelation as “the latest example of a Hounslow Labour Party falling apart at the seams.” He added: “It is a legal necessity for councillors to declare their business interests, yet once again a Hounslow Labour Councillor has tried to conceal their directorships from the public – just like former councillor Farhaan Rehman, residents will be left wondering what Sue Sampson has to hide. The obvious question now is why Councillor Sampson, an experienced cabinet member, failed to declare this directorship. This is just the latest example of a Hounslow Labour Party falling apart at the seams, mired in scandal after scandal. Residents demanded better in May’s local elections, but instead we’ve just got the same old Hounslow Labour.”
What Precedents Exist Within Hounslow Labour Regarding Undeclared Positions?
The current controversy follows a closely watched incident from earlier in the year involving former Hounslow Labour councillor Farhaan Rehman, who violated the council constitution by failing to declare three unpaid directorships.
As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, the LDRS discovered in October 2025 that Cllr Rehman had omitted three company directorships from his registry. Although Cllr Rehman insisted he received no remuneration and local party representatives defended the omission, an independent investigation in April 2026 concluded that unremunerated directorships still required formal declaration under the council’s governing framework, thereby establishing a strict precedent for transparency compliance.
How Has Councillor Sampson Responded to Allegations of Concealment?
Defending her actions against accusations of deliberate obfuscation, Cllr Sampson firmly rejected any suggestion of misconduct or hidden operations.
As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, Cllr Sampson stated: “I do not accept the suggestion that I sought to conceal information or that I have something to hide. My appointment as a director has been publicly recorded on the Companies House register since the company’s incorporation. The information was, and remains, available to anyone searching the public record. For clarity, I use both the names Susan Lockyer and Sue Sampson. This is not a recent arrangement and there has never been any attempt to disguise the connection between the two names. Hounslow Council’s own election records have for many years publicly identified me as ‘Susan Lockyer (known as Sue Sampson)’.”
She concluded by confirming that she has updated her administrative paperwork:
“In the interests of openness and transparency, I have now registered the directorship as an Other Registrable Interest. The company has never been active, never traded, never received income and has provided no financial benefit to me. On that basis, it is not deemed to constitute a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. This is not a case involving a hidden business operation, undisclosed income or personal financial gain. It concerns an inactive company that never commenced business and from which no benefit was derived.”
Explore more Hounslow News:
Labour Loses Majority Control of Hounslow Council in Hounslow 2026
Tory Rift Over Heathrow Third Runway Deepens in Hounslow 2026
What Is the Stance of the Council Leader?
Standing by his Cabinet member, Council Leader Shantanu Rajawat dismissed calls for disciplinary action or dismissal, characterising the incident as an innocent oversight rather than a deliberate rules violation.
As reported by Philip James Lynch of My London, Cllr Rajawat stated: “Councillor Sampson accepts that she made an error and immediately self-referred to the Monitoring Officer and took advice and steps to update her register of interests. There was a clear misunderstanding around the need to declare unpaid, unremunerated directorships – even of inactive companies that have never traded. I am satisfied that Councillor Sampson made an honest mistake and that she has taken the appropriate actions in the interest of transparency to ensure that her Register of Interests is now fully up to date.”
Background of the Particular Development
The requirement for local authority members to register business interests, directorships, and property holdings forms a cornerstone of public sector accountability in the United Kingdom. Regulated by the Localism Act 2011 and implemented through individual local authority codes of conduct and constitutions, these transparency frameworks are designed to prevent conflicts of interest, ensure public trust, and maintain scrupulous ethical standards among elected officials who make decisions involving public funds, housing policies, and urban planning.
In recent years, scrutiny over council transparency has intensified across Greater London boroughs, with local reporting services playing a critical role in cross-referencing Companies House data against public council registers. The specific focus on Hounslow Council comes during a politically turbulent period for the local Labour group, which recently lost its majority control following the separate arrest and suspension of Councillor Gurbachan Athwal. Against this backdrop of heightened political sensitivity, compliance failures regarding secondary directorships—even when inactive or unremunerated—carry significant institutional and reputational risks for the ruling administration.
This development threatens to compound political instability within Hounslow Council, directly impacting local residents, municipal governance, and public trust in the ruling Labour administration. For the local community and council tax-payers, persistent controversies surrounding transparency and member conduct risk eroding confidence in local housing policy decisions, particularly at a time when public oversight of property and development interests is paramount.
For the political landscape, the incident hands opposition Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors a powerful narrative regarding administrative competence and internal discipline. While Council Leader Shantanu Rajawat has closed ranks and accepted Cllr Sampson’s self-referral as an honest mistake, continued public pressure and potential formal investigations by the council’s Monitoring Officer mean the political fallout will likely linger. If further compliance gaps are uncovered or if public dissatisfaction mounts, the administration could face prolonged paralysis, diminished voter confidence, and increased vulnerability in future electoral contests.
