“Most Council services run well, and any issues are resolved locally without any further action. If the citizen remains unhappy then they can make a formal complaint” Harrow council legal director’s legalistic statement in Annual Complaints and Ombudsman report for the meeting on 26 November 2024.
But the national headlines regarding the Ombudsman decisions against the Harrow council tell a different story. A culture of saying ‘no’ with a smile, pleasant writing, respecting the residents and politely handling their complaints could have avoided many complaints to the Ombudsman, as well as could have helped in making the council claim ‘putting residents first’ more meaningful.
The council could do with well-trained public relations officers rather than a legalistic and authoritative approach to deal with the public enquiries and complaints most of the time.
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) and Housing Ombudsman have recently made several decisions against Harrow Council, including:
Care home failings: the BBC has reported on 5 January 2025 that the LGO ordered Harrow Council to pay £300 to a woman with dementia and £250 to her daughter after the care home failed to provide the right support.
The investigation found that the woman’s lower denture wasn’t cleaned or removed for several months, and that staff used a knife to open her door.
The ombudsman found the care home, which is under the jurisdiction of Harrow Council, was at fault for causing “frustration and uncertainty” and “avoidable discomfort”.
Inaccurate information during the child protection inquiries: 22 016 751 of 8/12/2023, Mrs X complained that the council used false and inaccurate information during child protection inquiries to create a negative assessment of her and her family. She also said the council did not communicate properly and failed to consider her human rights.
“We found the Council was at fault in that it included inaccurate and irrelevant information in various documents, causing Mrs X distress. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to amend the documents, apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her” the Ombudsman determined.
In a regulatory notice published on 20 April 2023, the Regulator of Social Housing concluded that: (a) the London Borough of Harrow has breached part 1.2 of the Home Standard; and (b) as a consequence of this breach, there was the potential for serious detriment to LB Harrow tenants.
The council had not completed electrical safety reports for 3,500 homes, and had not completed water risk assessments for every site requiring a re-inspection.
Residential care: (21 001 179) – The Ombudsman determined that there was fault by the care provider in its complaint handling when acting on behalf of the Council.
The complainant, Mr C lives in a care home. Some items of his clothing went missing. There was fault by the care provider in how it responded to the complaints.
There were also many complaints under the last elected Conservative administration (some below), which should have informed policy formation and practices that by dealing with resident concerns and needs with a smile and responding to them politely do not cost money but could give far less headache to the council administration:
In September 2009, Ombudsman ruling revealed West Lodge Schools merger failings by Harrow Council. Harrow council committed maladministration in the handling of the merger of two Pinner schools, and must pay compensation, the Local Government Ombudsman ruled.
In 2008, the High Court quashed a decision made by Harrow Council after the council’s committee report and decision record were deemed insufficient. The decision was passed to the Ombudsman due to the sensitivity of the case.
In 2007, re adult care services to those with “critical” needs, the High Court ruled the decision was unlawful because the council had not fully considered the need to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and others.
Hope there would be less reliance on the Ombudsman to sort out the council shortcomings.
But the national headlines regarding the Ombudsman decisions against the Harrow council tell a different story. A culture of saying ‘no’ with a smile, pleasant writing, respecting the residents and politely handling their complaints could have avoided many complaints to the Ombudsman, as well as could have helped in making the council claim ‘putting residents first’ more meaningful.
The council could do with well-trained public relations officers rather than a legalistic and authoritative approach to deal with the public enquiries and complaints most of the time.
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) and Housing Ombudsman have recently made several decisions against Harrow Council, including:
Care home failings: the BBC has reported on 5 January 2025 that the LGO ordered Harrow Council to pay £300 to a woman with dementia and £250 to her daughter after the care home failed to provide the right support.
The investigation found that the woman’s lower denture wasn’t cleaned or removed for several months, and that staff used a knife to open her door.
The ombudsman found the care home, which is under the jurisdiction of Harrow Council, was at fault for causing “frustration and uncertainty” and “avoidable discomfort”.
Inaccurate information during the child protection inquiries: 22 016 751 of 8/12/2023, Mrs X complained that the council used false and inaccurate information during child protection inquiries to create a negative assessment of her and her family. She also said the council did not communicate properly and failed to consider her human rights.
“We found the Council was at fault in that it included inaccurate and irrelevant information in various documents, causing Mrs X distress. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to amend the documents, apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her” the Ombudsman determined.
In a regulatory notice published on 20 April 2023, the Regulator of Social Housing concluded that: (a) the London Borough of Harrow has breached part 1.2 of the Home Standard; and (b) as a consequence of this breach, there was the potential for serious detriment to LB Harrow tenants.
The council had not completed electrical safety reports for 3,500 homes, and had not completed water risk assessments for every site requiring a re-inspection.
Residential care: (21 001 179) – The Ombudsman determined that there was fault by the care provider in its complaint handling when acting on behalf of the Council.
The complainant, Mr C lives in a care home. Some items of his clothing went missing. There was fault by the care provider in how it responded to the complaints.
There were also many complaints under the last elected Conservative administration (some below), which should have informed policy formation and practices that by dealing with resident concerns and needs with a smile and responding to them politely do not cost money but could give far less headache to the council administration:
In September 2009, Ombudsman ruling revealed West Lodge Schools merger failings by Harrow Council. Harrow council committed maladministration in the handling of the merger of two Pinner schools, and must pay compensation, the Local Government Ombudsman ruled.
In 2008, the High Court quashed a decision made by Harrow Council after the council’s committee report and decision record were deemed insufficient. The decision was passed to the Ombudsman due to the sensitivity of the case.
In 2007, re adult care services to those with “critical” needs, the High Court ruled the decision was unlawful because the council had not fully considered the need to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and others.
Hope there would be less reliance on the Ombudsman to sort out the council shortcomings.
Harrow Monitoring Group 
Dear Sir/Madam,
I recently read your latest post, ‘More Ombudsman Decisions Against Harrow Council’, published on 8 January 2025, with great interest.
On the back of this, I wish to bring to your attention the disgraceful treatment of a vulnerable and disabled Harrow Council tenant, Mr. Anthony Scott. While I previously contacted you about Mr. Scott’s dire situation, my concerns were met with indifference. At the time, your stance on the council was notably more optimistic, trusting that new leadership would bring genuine improvement.
Your recent article rightly exposes the council’s entrenched culture: “A culture of saying ‘no’ with a smile, pleasant writing, respecting the residents, and politely handling their complaints could have avoided many complaints to the Ombudsman…” Mr. Scott’s case is a glaring example of this failure, with two complaints already escalated to the Ombudsman—soon to be more, should this injustice persist.
After years of neglect and inaction, the council finally agreed to settle his prolonged disrepair claim on 1 May 2025, stating: “This settlement is not an admission of liability and the council is discharged from any further liability in respect of this matter.” The agreed terms initially dictated that “25% of the sum would be paid upfront, with the remaining 75% payable upon completion and sign-off of the works.
Under my guidance, Mr. Scott renegotiated these terms, securing “75% upfront, with the balance payable within 48 hours of completion and sign-off.” Despite this, the council later amended its commitment on 7 May 2025 to “50% upfront and the remainder upon sign-off.”
Yet, in a staggering breach of contract, the council has now refused to make any payment.
Adding to this injustice, a new member of management recently manipulated Mr. Scott into opening his home under the pretense of a meeting to discuss the scheduled and long-agreed works. However, the true motive soon emerged—this was not a discussion to ensure the works proceeded as planned but rather an attempt to reduce their scope and dispense with parts of the settlement entirely. This deceitful maneuvering demonstrates a deliberate strategy to weaken Mr. Scott’s rightful claims and evade the council’s financial obligations.
This calculated bad faith has plunged Mr. Scott into deeper financial hardship. He is already more than £6,000 out-of-pocket, having been forced to cover expenses that should rightfully have been addressed through the agreed settlement. The council’s actions—or rather, deliberate inaction—leave him vulnerable, unsupported, and trapped in a cycle of injustice.
I urge you to spotlight this case. It epitomises the systemic failures within Harrow Council and underscores the real-world consequences for those relying on ethical governance. Accountability is not optional—it is a necessity.
Yours sincerely,
Michelle Edwards
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, which we have reported to the Harrow council general manager and deputy leader for their action and response.
LikeLike
With all the incompetent characters working for Harrow Council where nothing gets done , it is no surprise that the Ombudsman & other authorities are coming down hard on Harrow Council for dereliction of Duty!Shocking.
LikeLike