The Metropolitan Constabulary has summoned Vincent Drury for a formal interview on Wednesday morning — the first time the investigation into falsified fire safety certificates in the Docklands has reached beyond the orbit of Gerald Ashcroft’s property holdings.

Drury, 47, is the sole listed director of Greystone Shipping & Haulage, the firm that owns the warehouse at 16 Old Harbour Road where a third falsified certificate was discovered on Monday. The previous two — at properties on Chandler’s Row and Pilot’s Alley — were linked to Ashcroft-controlled buildings.

Senior Inspector Callum Frye confirmed on Tuesday that Drury had been asked to attend Constabulary headquarters on Foundry Row “to assist with inquiries related to fire safety documentation in the Docklands waterfront area.” Frye declined to characterise Drury as a suspect.

The Handwriting Connection

The Times has learned that a handwriting specialist retained by the Constabulary has completed a preliminary analysis of the three falsified certificates. The specialist’s initial finding, shared with investigators late Monday, identifies “consistent structural characteristics” across all three documents — the same pressure patterns, the same formation of capital letters, the same distinctive loop on the letter ‘g’.

The implication is significant: the three forgeries, spread across properties owned by two separate firms, appear to have been produced by the same hand. Whether that hand belongs to an individual acting independently or under instruction is now the central question.

Retired Inspector Raymond Duxbury, whose signature was forged on the Old Harbour Road certificate, told the Times on Tuesday that he had been contacted by investigators and had provided exemplar signatures for comparison. “I signed perhaps ten thousand documents in my career,” Duxbury said. “I know my own hand. That certificate is not mine.”

Ashcroft Distances from Drury

The relationship between Gerald Ashcroft and Vincent Drury has become a matter of keen investigative interest. Greystone Shipping & Haulage was incorporated in 2019 and registered at an address on Harbourfront Parade — approximately 300 metres from several Ashcroft-controlled properties.

Solicitor Edmond Crayle, acting for Ashcroft, issued a statement on Tuesday afternoon that appeared to establish distance between the two men.

“My client has no ownership interest in, directorial role with, or operational involvement in Greystone Shipping & Haulage,” Crayle said. “Mr Ashcroft is himself a victim of what appears to be a wider pattern of documentary fraud in the Docklands. He is cooperating fully with investigators and expects to be vindicated.”

The statement represents a notable shift in Crayle’s posture. Previous statements had focused on procedural objections and general denials. The explicit distancing from Drury suggests that Ashcroft’s legal team sees the forgery investigation as a threat distinct from the arson inquiry.

Audit Progress

The Docklands safety audit, now in its fifth day, has assessed 42 of 72 identified properties. The running tally is sobering: four certificates confirmed falsified, six with lapsed documentation, three with no fire safety records at all, and four with evidence of unauthorised habitation.

Fire Marshal Edwin Hale, who is coordinating the audit alongside the Constabulary and Revenue Office, described the emerging picture as “consistent with systematic neglect over a period of years, compounded in specific cases by deliberate fraud.”

The audit is expected to continue through mid-March, with a preliminary written report to the council by the first week of that month — coinciding with the Copper Review Commission’s reporting deadline.

Councilwoman Pryce, who proposed the audit, was brief when asked for comment: “The audit is finding what we feared it would find. The question now is who is responsible.”

The Times was unable to reach Vincent Drury for comment. A telephone call to the Greystone Shipping & Haulage office on Harbourfront Parade was answered by a woman who identified herself as an office clerk and said that Mr Drury was “not available.” Solicitors for Drury, if any have been retained, have not made themselves known.