Harrow council’s performance is a story of contrasts. Where cabinet members provide strong and visible, vote-winning leadership – or push initiatives that resonate with Reform-leaning or nationalistic voters – progress is clear.
In services affecting the most vulnerable, weak and undemanding leadership has left Harrow lagging behind more progressive London boroughs, for example where inadequate reports are not being properly scrutinised or challenged.
Statistically, Harrow sits in the lower half of London boroughs for deprivation, housing stress, and homelessness. Despite this, the council has failed to keep pace with peers in critical frontline services.
In services affecting the most vulnerable, weak and undemanding leadership has left Harrow lagging behind more progressive London boroughs, for example where inadequate reports are not being properly scrutinised or challenged.
Statistically, Harrow sits in the lower half of London boroughs for deprivation, housing stress, and homelessness. Despite this, the council has failed to keep pace with peers in critical frontline services.
- Children’s services: Rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted, with poor support for care leavers. A government Improvement Notice is now in place – a sign of systemic failure compared with some other London boroughs that maintain consistently higher standards.
- Adult social care: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) rated Harrow “Requires Improvement”. Many London councils achieve “Good” or “Outstanding.”
- Complaints handling: Ombudsman data shows a high proportion of cases upheld against Harrow, signalling both weak delivery and poor handling of residents’ concerns.
These are not marginal issues. Children’s services, adult social care and support for vulnerable adults account for around two-thirds of Harrow’s core budget. Failures here are not just service gaps – they represent systemic risks to the council’s financial stability and reputation.
Other boroughs, such as Barnet and Bromley, have shown how quickly services can be improved with clear political commitment, making the failing service a priority and cross-departmental focus. Harrow’s administration is in place for over three years but delivered little comparable progress, despite a favourable organisational structure where the rigidly turned-over senior management team remains closely aligned with the political leadership.
A key barrier is accountability. Senior managers undergo annual performance appraisals. Cabinet members, despite receiving generous council-funded allowances, do not. This double standard weakens trust and makes improvement harder to deliver, widening the gap with its London peers.
Harrow is not collapsing. But it is failing its responsibilities to its most vulnerable residents. Leadership has had the time and the resources to act. Without real accountability for councillors as well as officers, Harrow risks continued decline and a widening gap with its London peers.
Other boroughs, such as Barnet and Bromley, have shown how quickly services can be improved with clear political commitment, making the failing service a priority and cross-departmental focus. Harrow’s administration is in place for over three years but delivered little comparable progress, despite a favourable organisational structure where the rigidly turned-over senior management team remains closely aligned with the political leadership.
A key barrier is accountability. Senior managers undergo annual performance appraisals. Cabinet members, despite receiving generous council-funded allowances, do not. This double standard weakens trust and makes improvement harder to deliver, widening the gap with its London peers.
Harrow is not collapsing. But it is failing its responsibilities to its most vulnerable residents. Leadership has had the time and the resources to act. Without real accountability for councillors as well as officers, Harrow risks continued decline and a widening gap with its London peers.
Harrow Monitoring Group 