Independent audit exists to give the public confidence that their money is being properly managed. In Harrow Council, independent audit assurance has not been provided for two consecutive years.
This is not normal. It is not routine. And it is not acceptable.
The Council has published its accounts, but the independent verification that gives those figures credibility has not been completed. Residents are effectively being asked to rely on numbers that no external auditor has been able to confirm.
For the second year running, the Council’s auditors, Forvis Mazars, have issued a disclaimed opinion. In simple terms, this means they could not confirm the accounts are accurate because they were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to form a view.
No fraud has been identified, but that is not the point. The purpose of an audit is to establish whether financial statements can be relied upon. That basic test has not been met.
Every council is legally required to produce annual accounts showing how public money has been spent, and those accounts must then be independently verified. When that process fails once, it raises concern. When it fails twice, it indicates recurring challenges in the system.
As residents prepare to vote, the issue is no longer just how this situation arose. The question is whether the council can demonstrate that it is being resolved.
A second disclaimed opinion indicates challenges in the Council’s governance and oversight arrangements. This is not about individual effort; it is about whether the Council’s governance framework is equipped to manage the pressures it faces.
When key responsibilities are concentrated in a small number of roles, the risk is not simply one of workload; it is reduced capacity for challenge, limited separation of duties, and weakened oversight. This points to a structural issue rather than an individual one.
The Council’s accounts are prepared by officers, with overall responsibility resting with senior leadership, including the Managing Director and the Section 151 Officer, who holds statutory responsibility for financial administration. However, accountability does not end there.
The Audit and Governance Committee is intended to provide rigorous scrutiny and ensure that material issues are not only identified but resolved. The recurrence of the same outcome for a second consecutive year raises questions about how the Committee’s processes address recurring issues and ensure audit outcomes are resolved.
Absent clear evidence of intervention and improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the Committee is operating with the level of rigour and impact its mandate requires.
The Council has pointed to national audit backlogs as a major factor, citing the National Audit Office’s Local Audit Reset and Recovery Implementation Guidance. These backlogs, combined with statutory deadlines, have meant auditors often lacked the time to complete their work and gather sufficient evidence.
However, this explanation primarily reflects timing and process constraints at a national level. It does not fully address the position in Harrow. This is not simply a case of delay; it is a case where assurance has not been obtained.
While national guidance explains why some opinions are disclaimed due to system pressures, it does not remove the significance of an outcome where the accounts cannot be verified.
Alongside the audit disclaimer, a significant weakness has also been identified in the Council’s financial arrangements, specifically in relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), which funds special educational needs provision.
The Council is carrying a growing deficit in this area, and auditors have concluded that its recovery plan is not yet sufficiently developed to provide assurance. In practical terms, there is a financial problem, and the proposed solution is not yet fully established to withstand independent scrutiny.
The Council attributes the DSG overspend to rising demand for Education, Health and Care Plans, increasing complexity of need, and insufficient local provision, pressures that are reflected nationally. However, while this provides context, the scale of the deficit remains significant, and the extent of local mitigation measures to manage demand or control costs is not yet clear from available information.
The distinction is critical: national factors may explain the pressures, but they do not account for the absence of assurance.
After two years without verified accounts, the central question is clear: can the Council demonstrate that its financial management and governance are robust enough to restore trust, and, crucially, provide a convincing explanation for why independent audit assurance remains absent? While explanations have been offered, they have not resolved the underlying concern. Until they do, that assurance remains lacking.
In response, Cllr David Ashton, the Council’s finance lead, focuses primarily on process compliance and audit logistics. He emphasises that statutory deadlines were met, that the accounts were prepared in line with required standards, and that oversight was maintained through the Governance, Audit, Risk Management and Standards Committee.
He links the disclaimed opinion to delays on the part of the external auditor, arguing that insufficient time to complete audit procedures, rather than any issue with the accounts themselves, was the determining factor. This is presented as a sector-wide issue, largely outside the Council’s control.
However, this explanation focuses on procedural compliance and timing. It does not provide detail on measures taken to address the recurrence of disclaimed opinions or ensure that sufficient evidence would be available to support the audit. In essence, it explains what happened, but not why the outcome was not prevented, or what has changed to avoid recurrence.
This is not normal. It is not routine. And it is not acceptable.
The Council has published its accounts, but the independent verification that gives those figures credibility has not been completed. Residents are effectively being asked to rely on numbers that no external auditor has been able to confirm.
For the second year running, the Council’s auditors, Forvis Mazars, have issued a disclaimed opinion. In simple terms, this means they could not confirm the accounts are accurate because they were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to form a view.
No fraud has been identified, but that is not the point. The purpose of an audit is to establish whether financial statements can be relied upon. That basic test has not been met.
Every council is legally required to produce annual accounts showing how public money has been spent, and those accounts must then be independently verified. When that process fails once, it raises concern. When it fails twice, it indicates recurring challenges in the system.
As residents prepare to vote, the issue is no longer just how this situation arose. The question is whether the council can demonstrate that it is being resolved.
A second disclaimed opinion indicates challenges in the Council’s governance and oversight arrangements. This is not about individual effort; it is about whether the Council’s governance framework is equipped to manage the pressures it faces.
When key responsibilities are concentrated in a small number of roles, the risk is not simply one of workload; it is reduced capacity for challenge, limited separation of duties, and weakened oversight. This points to a structural issue rather than an individual one.
The Council’s accounts are prepared by officers, with overall responsibility resting with senior leadership, including the Managing Director and the Section 151 Officer, who holds statutory responsibility for financial administration. However, accountability does not end there.
The Audit and Governance Committee is intended to provide rigorous scrutiny and ensure that material issues are not only identified but resolved. The recurrence of the same outcome for a second consecutive year raises questions about how the Committee’s processes address recurring issues and ensure audit outcomes are resolved.
Absent clear evidence of intervention and improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the Committee is operating with the level of rigour and impact its mandate requires.
The Council has pointed to national audit backlogs as a major factor, citing the National Audit Office’s Local Audit Reset and Recovery Implementation Guidance. These backlogs, combined with statutory deadlines, have meant auditors often lacked the time to complete their work and gather sufficient evidence.
However, this explanation primarily reflects timing and process constraints at a national level. It does not fully address the position in Harrow. This is not simply a case of delay; it is a case where assurance has not been obtained.
While national guidance explains why some opinions are disclaimed due to system pressures, it does not remove the significance of an outcome where the accounts cannot be verified.
Alongside the audit disclaimer, a significant weakness has also been identified in the Council’s financial arrangements, specifically in relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), which funds special educational needs provision.
The Council is carrying a growing deficit in this area, and auditors have concluded that its recovery plan is not yet sufficiently developed to provide assurance. In practical terms, there is a financial problem, and the proposed solution is not yet fully established to withstand independent scrutiny.
The Council attributes the DSG overspend to rising demand for Education, Health and Care Plans, increasing complexity of need, and insufficient local provision, pressures that are reflected nationally. However, while this provides context, the scale of the deficit remains significant, and the extent of local mitigation measures to manage demand or control costs is not yet clear from available information.
The distinction is critical: national factors may explain the pressures, but they do not account for the absence of assurance.
After two years without verified accounts, the central question is clear: can the Council demonstrate that its financial management and governance are robust enough to restore trust, and, crucially, provide a convincing explanation for why independent audit assurance remains absent? While explanations have been offered, they have not resolved the underlying concern. Until they do, that assurance remains lacking.
In response, Cllr David Ashton, the Council’s finance lead, focuses primarily on process compliance and audit logistics. He emphasises that statutory deadlines were met, that the accounts were prepared in line with required standards, and that oversight was maintained through the Governance, Audit, Risk Management and Standards Committee.
He links the disclaimed opinion to delays on the part of the external auditor, arguing that insufficient time to complete audit procedures, rather than any issue with the accounts themselves, was the determining factor. This is presented as a sector-wide issue, largely outside the Council’s control.
However, this explanation focuses on procedural compliance and timing. It does not provide detail on measures taken to address the recurrence of disclaimed opinions or ensure that sufficient evidence would be available to support the audit. In essence, it explains what happened, but not why the outcome was not prevented, or what has changed to avoid recurrence.
References
- Auditor’s Annual Report 2024–25 (Harrow Council)
Confirms auditors were “unable to complete the audit procedures necessary to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence” before publication, meaning they could not form an opinion on the accounts. - Governance, Audit Committee papers (Feb 2025)
Notes that a disclaimer of opinion would be issued on the Council’s financial statements. - Auditor’s Annual Report 2024–25 (detailed findings)
Identifies a “significant weakness in arrangements” relating to the DSG deficit, which grew from £1.8m to £13.8m and is projected to increase further. - External Audit Update report (Nov 2025)
Highlights concerns about the lack of sufficient alternative actions and ongoing risks linked to the DSG recovery plan. - Governance, Audit Committee papers (Nov 2025)
Confirms auditors reviewed the DSG recovery plan and assessed whether “appropriate and realistic plans are in place”, indicating ongoing scrutiny concerns. - Auditor’s Annual Report 2024–25 (governance section)
Concludes there are significant weaknesses in governance arrangements, including areas such as financial sustainability and internal controls. - Governance, Audit Committee agenda and reports
Confirms ongoing reporting to the committee on audit findings and value-for-money conclusions. - Audit Completion Report (Feb 2026)
Provides the formal audit reporting framework and confirms continuing audit work on the Council’s financial statements. - External Audit Update (committee report)
Shows the audit remained in draft/reporting stages, reinforcing that assurance had not been fully concluded.
Harrow Monitoring Group 