Harrow Council’s leadership continues to claim it is “putting residents first,” yet its approach to communication suggests a model driven more by managing appearances and ensuring compliance than by genuine openness. While certain audiences are actively engaged through curated, sometimes nationalistically framed messaging, the wider public is left navigating an opaque and fragmented picture on issues of real consequence.
This is most evident in children’s services. The borough remains without a permanent Director of Children’s Services, operating under interim arrangements amid ongoing recruitment. At the same time, Ofsted has identified instability, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has upheld a complaint involving fault, procedural failures, and wider governance concerns that caused injustice. Remedies, including financial redress, have been required. Yet there has been no clear, accessible explanation of what this means in practice, no update on recruitment timelines, no plain-language account of interim safeguards, and no direct statement on what has changed in response to these findings. Instead, residents must piece together the position from dispersed and technical documents. This is not active communication; it is minimal disclosure.
The Ombudsman’s findings, which go to the functioning of the system rather than an isolated error, should have prompted visible accountability. Instead, the response has been procedural, focused on compliance rather than rebuilding trust through transparency.
A similar pattern appears in the handling of member conduct. The Council’s Standards Working Group found that Councillor Perry, also Leader of the Opposition, breached the Code of Conduct by using Council resources, specifically the hybrid mail system, for party-political purposes. The sanction imposed was censure, with a requirement for publication in both a local newspaper and on the Council’s website.
While this satisfies the formal requirement, the execution raises concerns. There is no readily accessible or visible notice on the Council’s website or through its social media outlets, undermining the purpose of the sanction. In a local democracy, such findings must be clearly and proactively communicated; otherwise, accountability is reduced to a technicality rather than a meaningful public record.
Taken together, these cases point to a consistent pattern: the Council meets its legal obligations, but fails to be open and transparent with residents. Communication is selective, highly visible messaging that appeals to identity, certain community sentiment, and political positioning is actively promoted, while serious problems are not clearly explained and are left buried in technical reports and procedures.
If Harrow Council is serious about putting residents first, it must move beyond this compliance-based approach and adopt clear, structured, and accessible communication. Without that shift, the claim risks remaining a slogan rather than a standard.
This is most evident in children’s services. The borough remains without a permanent Director of Children’s Services, operating under interim arrangements amid ongoing recruitment. At the same time, Ofsted has identified instability, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has upheld a complaint involving fault, procedural failures, and wider governance concerns that caused injustice. Remedies, including financial redress, have been required. Yet there has been no clear, accessible explanation of what this means in practice, no update on recruitment timelines, no plain-language account of interim safeguards, and no direct statement on what has changed in response to these findings. Instead, residents must piece together the position from dispersed and technical documents. This is not active communication; it is minimal disclosure.
The Ombudsman’s findings, which go to the functioning of the system rather than an isolated error, should have prompted visible accountability. Instead, the response has been procedural, focused on compliance rather than rebuilding trust through transparency.
A similar pattern appears in the handling of member conduct. The Council’s Standards Working Group found that Councillor Perry, also Leader of the Opposition, breached the Code of Conduct by using Council resources, specifically the hybrid mail system, for party-political purposes. The sanction imposed was censure, with a requirement for publication in both a local newspaper and on the Council’s website.
While this satisfies the formal requirement, the execution raises concerns. There is no readily accessible or visible notice on the Council’s website or through its social media outlets, undermining the purpose of the sanction. In a local democracy, such findings must be clearly and proactively communicated; otherwise, accountability is reduced to a technicality rather than a meaningful public record.
Taken together, these cases point to a consistent pattern: the Council meets its legal obligations, but fails to be open and transparent with residents. Communication is selective, highly visible messaging that appeals to identity, certain community sentiment, and political positioning is actively promoted, while serious problems are not clearly explained and are left buried in technical reports and procedures.
If Harrow Council is serious about putting residents first, it must move beyond this compliance-based approach and adopt clear, structured, and accessible communication. Without that shift, the claim risks remaining a slogan rather than a standard.
Harrow Monitoring Group 