Harrow Council’s £30,000 compensation payment over two protected trees might appear an unusual one-off dispute. Viewed alongside other expenditure when council decisions and services have gone wrong, however, it raises a bigger question: how effectively is Harrow assessing legal and financial risk before committing taxpayers’ money?
Royal Sun Alliance Insurance claimed two protected trees were causing subsidence and sought permission to fell them. Harrow refused. In January 2026, the council settled the resulting statutory compensation claim for £30,000. But the expenditure did not stop there. Harrow contested the insurer’s entitlement to legal costs. The Upper Tribunal rejected Harrow’s argument and ruled that costs could be recovered, subject to assessment. The final bill remains unknown.
More troublingly, the published judgment and subsequent legal analysis indicate that earlier decisions already supported the availability of costs in such proceedings. This does not establish that Harrow’s lawyers advised incorrectly, but it raises legitimate questions: what advice was received, how strong was Harrow’s position considered to be, who authorised pursuing the argument, and what did it ultimately cost?
The tree case is not isolated. Harrow has incurred compensation from pothole and pavement claims, Housing Ombudsman maladministration findings and failures affecting children and SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) services. It also joined other Conservative-held London councils in the unsuccessful 2023 High Court challenge to the Mayor of London’s ULEZ expansion, committing public resources to litigation that failed.
These cases have different circumstances and cannot simply be labelled evidence of incompetence. Collectively, however, they raise an important governance issue: the cost of getting it wrong.
Harrow’s legal service, HB Public Law, describes itself as providing cost-effective legal services. The test is whether sufficiently robust advice on prospects, precedent, financial exposure and proportionality was provided and whether the administration acted prudently upon it.
The quality of that advice becomes still more significant when considered against Harrow’s wider approach to service delivery. The administration has placed considerable emphasis on compliance, processes, policies and governance arrangements as evidence that services are properly managed. Yet external inspection has identified serious weaknesses: Children’s Services was judged Inadequate by Ofsted, while Adult Social Care was rated Requires Improvement by the Care Quality Commission.
Compliance is not the same as effectiveness. A council can have policies, procedures, legal advice and formal authorisations yet still produce poor outcomes if professional challenge, risk assessment and senior decision-making are insufficient. The same applies to litigation: the issue is not merely whether legal advice was obtained, but whether it was rigorous, alternatives and financial risks were properly tested, and senior decision-makers challenged it before committing public money.
The tree case therefore tests Harrow’s wider corporate assurance: does the council merely demonstrate that processes have been followed, or can it show that those processes produce sound decisions, effective services and value for money?
Residents should be told how much Harrow has spent since 2022 on compensation, damages, Ombudsman redress and unsuccessful or adverse legal proceedings, including associated external legal costs.
Legal privilege need not be breached. But it should not shield financial accountability. Residents can be told who authorised litigation, what financial risk was accepted, what it ultimately cost and what lessons were learned.
When taxpayers repeatedly pick up the bill, asking who advised, who decided and who assessed the risk is not hindsight. It is basic public accountability.
Royal Sun Alliance Insurance claimed two protected trees were causing subsidence and sought permission to fell them. Harrow refused. In January 2026, the council settled the resulting statutory compensation claim for £30,000. But the expenditure did not stop there. Harrow contested the insurer’s entitlement to legal costs. The Upper Tribunal rejected Harrow’s argument and ruled that costs could be recovered, subject to assessment. The final bill remains unknown.
More troublingly, the published judgment and subsequent legal analysis indicate that earlier decisions already supported the availability of costs in such proceedings. This does not establish that Harrow’s lawyers advised incorrectly, but it raises legitimate questions: what advice was received, how strong was Harrow’s position considered to be, who authorised pursuing the argument, and what did it ultimately cost?
The tree case is not isolated. Harrow has incurred compensation from pothole and pavement claims, Housing Ombudsman maladministration findings and failures affecting children and SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) services. It also joined other Conservative-held London councils in the unsuccessful 2023 High Court challenge to the Mayor of London’s ULEZ expansion, committing public resources to litigation that failed.
These cases have different circumstances and cannot simply be labelled evidence of incompetence. Collectively, however, they raise an important governance issue: the cost of getting it wrong.
Harrow’s legal service, HB Public Law, describes itself as providing cost-effective legal services. The test is whether sufficiently robust advice on prospects, precedent, financial exposure and proportionality was provided and whether the administration acted prudently upon it.
The quality of that advice becomes still more significant when considered against Harrow’s wider approach to service delivery. The administration has placed considerable emphasis on compliance, processes, policies and governance arrangements as evidence that services are properly managed. Yet external inspection has identified serious weaknesses: Children’s Services was judged Inadequate by Ofsted, while Adult Social Care was rated Requires Improvement by the Care Quality Commission.
Compliance is not the same as effectiveness. A council can have policies, procedures, legal advice and formal authorisations yet still produce poor outcomes if professional challenge, risk assessment and senior decision-making are insufficient. The same applies to litigation: the issue is not merely whether legal advice was obtained, but whether it was rigorous, alternatives and financial risks were properly tested, and senior decision-makers challenged it before committing public money.
The tree case therefore tests Harrow’s wider corporate assurance: does the council merely demonstrate that processes have been followed, or can it show that those processes produce sound decisions, effective services and value for money?
Residents should be told how much Harrow has spent since 2022 on compensation, damages, Ombudsman redress and unsuccessful or adverse legal proceedings, including associated external legal costs.
Legal privilege need not be breached. But it should not shield financial accountability. Residents can be told who authorised litigation, what financial risk was accepted, what it ultimately cost and what lessons were learned.
When taxpayers repeatedly pick up the bill, asking who advised, who decided and who assessed the risk is not hindsight. It is basic public accountability.