Harrow Council’s crisis-hit children’s services have been dealt another blow after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found serious fault in the way it handled a family’s complaint about respite care. The ruling, published in July 2025, comes amid continuing fallout from Ofsted’s “inadequate” judgement and a government improvement notice that has placed the service under formal supervision.
The Ombudsman found that Harrow failed to follow the statutory children’s complaints procedure in a case involving a teenage child with special needs. The family, entitled to 28 nights of respite care a year, never received the full support promised. Instead of following the law, the Council mishandled the matter through its corporate complaints system, provided confusing and incomplete responses, and ignored multiple reminders from the Ombudsman.
The watchdog concluded that these failings caused “avoidable distress, worry and frustration” to the family. Harrow has since agreed to apologise, pay £700 in symbolic compensation, and restart a lawful Stage 2 investigation. A report to Cabinet on 30 October 2025 by Monitoring Officer Jessica Farmer confirmed the Council was guilty of “fault causing injustice” and outlined systemic weaknesses in its complaints handling and governance.
The case adds to a troubling pattern of findings against Harrow by the Ombudsman in recent years. Since 2022, the Council has been found at fault in multiple cases across housing, adult care and special educational needs. These include failures to rehouse vulnerable residents, mishandling care charges, lengthy delays in providing statutory SEN support, and poor communication with families. Compensation payments over this period exceed £10,000, including more than £6,000 in one housing case in 2025 where a blind man and his family were left in unsuitable accommodation for years.
Council leaders say reforms are underway. New escalation routes have been introduced, recruitment is underway to strengthen case-handling, and plans are advancing for a digital system to track complaints and improve oversight. But after successive watchdog rebukes and an ongoing government improvement notice, Harrow’s pledges of reform are being met with scepticism.
Pride in Harrow comes not from nationalist gestures or slogans, but from valuing all residents equally – especially the most vulnerable. Until the Council demonstrates that commitment in practice, its reputation for care and accountability will remain under question – reflecting poorly on the leadership and management of the authority.
The Ombudsman found that Harrow failed to follow the statutory children’s complaints procedure in a case involving a teenage child with special needs. The family, entitled to 28 nights of respite care a year, never received the full support promised. Instead of following the law, the Council mishandled the matter through its corporate complaints system, provided confusing and incomplete responses, and ignored multiple reminders from the Ombudsman.
The watchdog concluded that these failings caused “avoidable distress, worry and frustration” to the family. Harrow has since agreed to apologise, pay £700 in symbolic compensation, and restart a lawful Stage 2 investigation. A report to Cabinet on 30 October 2025 by Monitoring Officer Jessica Farmer confirmed the Council was guilty of “fault causing injustice” and outlined systemic weaknesses in its complaints handling and governance.
The case adds to a troubling pattern of findings against Harrow by the Ombudsman in recent years. Since 2022, the Council has been found at fault in multiple cases across housing, adult care and special educational needs. These include failures to rehouse vulnerable residents, mishandling care charges, lengthy delays in providing statutory SEN support, and poor communication with families. Compensation payments over this period exceed £10,000, including more than £6,000 in one housing case in 2025 where a blind man and his family were left in unsuitable accommodation for years.
Council leaders say reforms are underway. New escalation routes have been introduced, recruitment is underway to strengthen case-handling, and plans are advancing for a digital system to track complaints and improve oversight. But after successive watchdog rebukes and an ongoing government improvement notice, Harrow’s pledges of reform are being met with scepticism.
Pride in Harrow comes not from nationalist gestures or slogans, but from valuing all residents equally – especially the most vulnerable. Until the Council demonstrates that commitment in practice, its reputation for care and accountability will remain under question – reflecting poorly on the leadership and management of the authority.
Harrow Monitoring Group 