Questions about the quality of Harrow Council’s governance, accountability, transparency, service outcomes, value for money and senior political and managerial leadership are becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. The latest evidence comes from Ofsted’s newly published London-wide comparison of local authority children’s services.
As at 31 March 2026, 18 of London’s 33 local authorities were rated Outstanding, 12 Good, one Required Improvement and only two Inadequate. Harrow is one of those two. In other words, 91 per cent of London councils are now Good or Outstanding, while Harrow remains in the lowest Ofsted category. Although Ofsted does not publish a numbered league table, an Inadequate judgement means Harrow is effectively joint bottom in London, below 31 of the capital’s 33 authorities by inspection grade.
The comparison becomes still more uncomfortable when looking across Harrow’s boundaries. Barnet, Brent and Ealing are rated Good, while Hillingdon is Outstanding, according to Ofsted’s underlying local-authority data.
Ofsted’s national evidence shows that improvement from Inadequate is possible. Harrow residents are therefore entitled to ask how quickly their own authority is progressing towards the point where it can demonstrate comparable improvement.
The financial picture makes the question more pressing. Harrow Council’s draft 2025–26 accounts report a £5.471 million overspend in Children’s Services. When a service is simultaneously consuming millions more than budgeted and remains in Ofsted’s lowest overall category, value for money cannot sensibly be measured simply by whether more money has been spent.
There is then the question of senior management. The Inadequate judgement arose during the period in which Parmjit Chahal was Harrow’s statutory Director of Children’s Services. She left the Council on 7 November 2025, resulting in Managing Director Alex Dewsnap to hurriedly assume the DCS responsibilities on an interim basis until a permanent successor was appointed in May 2026. According to the Council’s draft accounts, the post-holder received £89,281 in salary, £20,786 in employer pension contributions and, separately, an exit payment of £70,549, producing total remuneration of £180,616 for the year. Her stated annual salary was £146,739.
An exit payment is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety. But why was an additional £70,549 paid when the statutory service led by the departing director had been judged Inadequate, and what obligation or rationale required that payment?
Accountability, however, should not stop with one former director. Children’s services are not run by a single individual in isolation. The statutory DCS has professional and operational responsibilities, but the Managing Director provides corporate leadership; Cabinet provides political leadership; the relevant portfolio holder carries political responsibility; scrutiny is intended to challenge performance; and the Council as a corporate body determines resources, governance and the organisational environment within which children’s services operate.
Accountability also raises questions about Harrow’s wider corporate structure. The Strategic Director of Resources & Innovation has responsibilities spanning areas central to organisational improvement, including corporate strategy, workforce, digital and data, procurement and internal assurance. The Council itself describes the role as central to modernising services, strengthening resilience and improving how outcomes are delivered. This does not make the post-holder responsible for professional children’s-services decisions or the statutory financial responsibilities of the Section 151 Officer. It does, however, raise a legitimate corporate question: when a crucial statutory service is rated Inadequate while overspending by £5.47 million, how are the Council’s corporate resources, data, workforce, transformation and assurance functions being used to challenge performance, demonstrate value for money and accelerate improvement?
The question for Harrow is no longer simply what went wrong in individual parts of Children’s Services, but who at the top takes responsibility for ensuring that the organisation as a whole puts it right, and how residents can judge whether that responsibility is actually being discharged.
As at 31 March 2026, 18 of London’s 33 local authorities were rated Outstanding, 12 Good, one Required Improvement and only two Inadequate. Harrow is one of those two. In other words, 91 per cent of London councils are now Good or Outstanding, while Harrow remains in the lowest Ofsted category. Although Ofsted does not publish a numbered league table, an Inadequate judgement means Harrow is effectively joint bottom in London, below 31 of the capital’s 33 authorities by inspection grade.
The comparison becomes still more uncomfortable when looking across Harrow’s boundaries. Barnet, Brent and Ealing are rated Good, while Hillingdon is Outstanding, according to Ofsted’s underlying local-authority data.
Ofsted’s national evidence shows that improvement from Inadequate is possible. Harrow residents are therefore entitled to ask how quickly their own authority is progressing towards the point where it can demonstrate comparable improvement.
The financial picture makes the question more pressing. Harrow Council’s draft 2025–26 accounts report a £5.471 million overspend in Children’s Services. When a service is simultaneously consuming millions more than budgeted and remains in Ofsted’s lowest overall category, value for money cannot sensibly be measured simply by whether more money has been spent.
There is then the question of senior management. The Inadequate judgement arose during the period in which Parmjit Chahal was Harrow’s statutory Director of Children’s Services. She left the Council on 7 November 2025, resulting in Managing Director Alex Dewsnap to hurriedly assume the DCS responsibilities on an interim basis until a permanent successor was appointed in May 2026. According to the Council’s draft accounts, the post-holder received £89,281 in salary, £20,786 in employer pension contributions and, separately, an exit payment of £70,549, producing total remuneration of £180,616 for the year. Her stated annual salary was £146,739.
An exit payment is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety. But why was an additional £70,549 paid when the statutory service led by the departing director had been judged Inadequate, and what obligation or rationale required that payment?
Accountability, however, should not stop with one former director. Children’s services are not run by a single individual in isolation. The statutory DCS has professional and operational responsibilities, but the Managing Director provides corporate leadership; Cabinet provides political leadership; the relevant portfolio holder carries political responsibility; scrutiny is intended to challenge performance; and the Council as a corporate body determines resources, governance and the organisational environment within which children’s services operate.
Accountability also raises questions about Harrow’s wider corporate structure. The Strategic Director of Resources & Innovation has responsibilities spanning areas central to organisational improvement, including corporate strategy, workforce, digital and data, procurement and internal assurance. The Council itself describes the role as central to modernising services, strengthening resilience and improving how outcomes are delivered. This does not make the post-holder responsible for professional children’s-services decisions or the statutory financial responsibilities of the Section 151 Officer. It does, however, raise a legitimate corporate question: when a crucial statutory service is rated Inadequate while overspending by £5.47 million, how are the Council’s corporate resources, data, workforce, transformation and assurance functions being used to challenge performance, demonstrate value for money and accelerate improvement?
The question for Harrow is no longer simply what went wrong in individual parts of Children’s Services, but who at the top takes responsibility for ensuring that the organisation as a whole puts it right, and how residents can judge whether that responsibility is actually being discharged.