In a report just released, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman delivered a damning verdict, upholding her complaint against Haringey Council for “substantial delays” in assessing her housing need and providing suitable accommodation. The Ombudsman concluded that Ms D endured “a serious injustice” as a result of the council’s faults, stating:

“Because of the failings by the Council, Ms D has remained in an unsuitable property where she is effectively housebound without assistance to use the stairs.”

Subscribe now

A Litany of Delays

According to the investigation, Ms D first applied for a housing transfer in early 2022. She and her advocate submitted several online housing register applications but received no updates. When her MP intervened in January 2023, the council promised to assess her case, yet crucial referrals were ignored for months. The assessment, which should have been completed by spring 2023, was delayed until November that year. Even then, the report's clear recommendation that Ms D needed to be rehoused was not acted on until September 2024 - more than 15 months later.

Internal council emails also revealed that officers claimed they were "unable to access the system" to trace Ms D’s previous housing applications, further compounding the delays. The ruling paints a stark picture of the human cost of bureaucratic delays, leaving a vulnerable resident in a prolonged state of distress and confinement.

Not an Isolated Incident

Disturbingly, Ms D’s experience appears to be symptomatic of a much wider problem. In July, data from the Ombudsman revealed that Haringey had the highest number of upheld complaints per capita in England for the second consecutive year.

The ongoing complaints highlighting delays and poor assistance suggest the council's internal processes are not fit for purpose. Residents must ask themselves if councillors are providing the oversight and challenge needed to ensure processes and culture at the council change so no one else is left waiting, and suffering, for so long.

What’s Being Built on Tottenham High Road?

The plan, brought forward by a private developer, will create 52 partially self-contained units at 312 High Road. Each studio will feature a bed, kitchenette, and en-suite bathroom. However, the size of these units, ranging from just 14 to 27 square metres, has raised eyebrows. For context, the national space standard for a new one-person permanent home is 37 square metres. While these units are intended for temporary use, the reality for many in Haringey is that ‘temporary’ can last for years.

Excel House, 312 High Road, Tottenham. Credit: Google Maps

Permanent Problem, Temporary Fix?

The decision begs an important question. Is the council’s priority to manage the housing crisis by increasing the stock of temporary accommodation, or to solve it by creating permanent homes? By approving a development that wouldn’t meet the standards for permanent residency, the borough may be allowing infrastructure that perpetuates the cycle of housing insecurity. An alternative approach could have insisted on developing the site for fewer, but larger, permanent flats that could be used to move households out of temporary accommodation.

A Million-Pound Question for a Council in Crisis

The financial implications of temporary accommodation are stark. The council will pay a nightly rate reported to be £45 to £55 per room. At full occupancy this could cost Haringey Council up to £1 million per year. This comes after recent revelations that the council failed to review its own temporary accommodation rents for years, losing out on millions in potential income.

Given the strain on its day-to-day budget, some may ask why the council isn’t using its capital budget to purchase and develop such sites itself. While requiring an upfront investment, owning a property would turn a significant long-term rental liability into a public asset, reducing the very operational costs that are crippling council finances. Instead, a private developer stands to receive a substantial and steady income stream funded by the taxpayer while a site that could have been used for permanent housing is lost. Residents are left to wonder if this a step forward, or a sticking plaster that fails to address the root causes of the borough’s housing crisis.

The LGO’s report, described as “absolutely shocking” and “utterly negligent” by Liberal Democrat councillor Pippa Connor, detailed a case where a resident at risk of homelessness and with health issues received no help despite urgent alerts from a friend and emergency services. Tragically, this individual later suffered a fall during a seizure, resulting in a life-changing injury. While the Ombudsman could not state if the accident would have been prevented, the report highlighted the council’s “inertia” and the profound uncertainty left for the man’s loved ones.

The Ombudsman’s Damning Findings

Julie Odams, the LGO’s chief executive stated that the council needed to make “lasting changes”. The investigation found that the social work inbox was simply not being properly monitored, leaving hundreds of critical police reports unaddressed and residents at risk.

For a borough like Haringey, with substantial numbers of children living in poverty and over 12,000 households on the social housing waiting list, the demand for robust social services is immense. To have such a volume of critical communications ignored raises serious questions about the council’s operational effectiveness and its understanding of the human impact of its processes.

A History of Concern, A Call for Accountability

Cllr Pippa Connor, the opposition spokesperson for social care, pointed out that “Haringey of all places should have failsafe measures in place when it comes to serious safeguarding issues like these.” Her reference to Haringey’s painful history with safeguarding failures, notably the Victoria Climbié and Baby P cases, underscores the gravity of these recent revelations. “Apologies are no longer enough: we have heard ‘this must never happen again’ too many times before,” she asserted, demanding that senior officials and politicians explain how this was allowed to happen and what robust monitoring processes are now in place.

Where is the Accountability?

Following such a damning report, residents might expect clear accountability. However, there has been no indication of disciplinary action or resignations among senior officials or managers within Haringey Council. While the council has agreed to an action plan, including staff training on dealing with safeguarding referrals, the absence of visible individual accountability raises concerns about whether the root causes are truly being addressed.

With regular findings of failures from multiple watchdogs, what steps will Haringey’s councillors take to challenge the culture that allows such situations to occur?

The Council’s Latest Efforts to Expand Housing

In a bid to tackle the borough’s acute housing shortage, Haringey Council’s cabinet recently approved deals to acquire 108 properties and build 16 new ones. This includes 76 homes at The Roundway in Tottenham and another 32 at an existing housing scheme in Lordship Lane, both originally built for the private market but now destined to become council homes. Additionally, 16 ‘energy efficient’ homes are slated for construction in Highgate.

These 124 homes are part of a larger programme to deliver 3,000 new homes by 2031, with 2,000 already underway or completed since its inception in 2018. The newly acquired properties include a significant proportion of family-sized homes, with eight out of ten at Lordship Lane and four out of ten at The Roundway offering two bedrooms or more.

The Scale of the Challenge: Thousands on the Waiting List

While 124 new homes are undoubtedly a welcome addition, they must be viewed against the stark reality of Haringey’s housing crisis. Over 12,000 households are on the borough’s housing waiting list, with thousands more in temporary accommodation. This raises questions about the pace and scale of provision. Is the current programme, even with its target of 3,000 homes by 2031, sufficient to meaningfully address demand?

The council’s strategy involves both new construction and purchasing properties from the private market. While expedient in the short term, the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of relying on private market acquisitions for social housing warrants ongoing scrutiny. How does this approach compare to direct council-led building programmes in terms of cost and control?

The State of Existing Homes

Beyond the excitement of new developments, the condition and management of Haringey’s existing social housing stock remain a critical concern for residents. Local authorities across London, including Haringey, are grappling with significant financial constraints that directly impact their ability to maintain and improve existing properties.

Haringey has received particular criticism from the Housing Ombudsman for how it deals with social housing repairs and complaints, the subject of a special report in 2023 detailing a “culture of apathy”. Its landlord performance report for Haringey Council 2024/25 shows an sharply increasing number of determinations and a maladministration rate of 95%, well above the national average. While the council is focused on expanding its housing supply, the question of how it will adequately deal with the upkeep of its existing portfolio looms large.

Opening Hours Reduced

From September 29, Muswell Hill Library itself will close on Thursdays, with other weekdays and Saturdays seeing shorter hours. This pattern is echoed across Haringey, with Alexandra Park, Highgate, and Stroud Green libraries now open just four days a week. While Hornsey and Marcus Garvey libraries will offer seven-day service, the overall picture is one of diminished access for many.

The council frames these changes as an “economy drive,” prioritising “limited resources serving communities with the greatest needs” to save £675,000 annually. This comes as Haringey looks to make savings, following accepting £65 million in Exceptional Financial Support from central government, having not been able to balance its budget.

Are Library Services the Place to Make Cuts?

While capital investment in modern facilities is important, the simultaneous reduction in operational hours raises questions about the long-term vision for public access. The council claims making these hours permanent means “increased certainty over the availability of library provision”, but they are a reduction from previous levels. Public feedback continues to voice concerns about the impact on vulnerable groups, despite council claims of mitigation.

As Haringey Council navigates its financial tightrope, there is a question over whether libraries are the right place to make cuts. How can it ensure these vital community hubs remain genuinely accessible and serve all residents, when the doors are open less often?

A case decided in July 2025, highlights a deeply concerning pattern: the council’s failure to adequately review the suitability of temporary accommodation, significant delays in housing register priority banding reviews, and poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman found these faults caused the complainant, known as Miss X, “significant distress” and “avoidable time and trouble” over five years in unsuitable housing.

Regular Complaints

This is not an isolated incident. Haringey has faced a steady stream of upheld complaints, casting a shadow over its housing services. Indeed, the borough had the most upheld LGO complaints per capita of any local authority in the country. Beyond Miss X’s experience, other investigations in 2025 have revealed ‘severe systemic failings’ in the council’s social care and complaint handling, particularly concerning vulnerable individuals at risk of homelessness.

Challenge is needed

While the council has implemented actions in response to LGO recommendations, the ongoing stream of upheld complaints raises serious questions about the effectiveness of these measures. Are the underlying issues truly being addressed, or are residents still being let down by a system struggling to cope? The human cost of these administrative failures is profound. For families like Miss X’s, it means years of uncertainty, ill-health, and distress.

What do these repeated findings mean for trust in local governance and what challenge will councillors provide the officers to ensure residents receive the fair and timely services they deserve?

In February, Haringey Council secured a £37m government bailout, known as Exceptional Financial Support (EFS), to balance its books for the entire 2025/26 financial year. Yet, just three months into the year, a new report reveals the council is already facing a staggering £34.1 million budget deficit over and above that support, which the council does not have funds to cover.

A Q1 financial update presented to the cabinet on 16th September paints a grim picture. Forecast spending on day-to-day services has ballooned to £348.5m against a budget of £314.4m. The report soberly warns there is “a risk” that the assumed £37m of EFS “will not be sufficient”, which seems to be putting it mildly. With the report stating 80% of spending directed at supporting the borough’s most vulnerable residents, the consequences of this financial turmoil are profound.

The Multi-Million Pound Oversight in Housing

While the council points to external pressures like inflation and rising demand, an investigation into its own reports reveals a pattern of serious internal failures. A key example lies in a July 2025 report titled ‘Temporary Accommodation Rent Setting Approach’. It shockingly admits that rents for temporary accommodation properties held in the council’s General Fund were originally set in 2011/12 and had “not been reviewed since 2017.”

For years, as the cost of providing temporary housing soared, it seems the council failed to update the rents it charged. The majority of this rent is covered by central government housing benefits, not the tenants themselves. By not reviewing and increasing these rents annually, a might be expected, Haringey effectively failed to claim millions of pounds of available income from central government each year. Instead, local taxpayers were left to cover the ever-widening gap between the cost of accommodation and the outdated income received for it. The report finally recommends large rent increases and bringing the rent setting policy in line with standard practice, but the financial damage from years of neglect has already been done.

A Pattern of Poor Financial Scrutiny

This oversight is not an isolated incident. The Q1 financial report also confirms a £9.2 million shortfall from undelivered savings targets, indicating a failure to implement its own cost-cutting plans. This follows a critical KPMG audit of the 2023/24 finances, which described the “lack of an effective process for identifying and delivering cost saving programmes”.

The findings give weight to criticisms made earlier in the year. In February, Liberal Democrat group leader Luke Cawley-Harrison accused the administration of being “caught unaware” by financial pressures that had been “coming for a long time.” The evidence suggests the warnings were not heeded.

The Human Cost of Mismanagement

The numbers on a spreadsheet translate into real-world consequences for Haringey’s residents. With a long list of responsibilities to the public, every pound of public money spent by the council counts. The millions lost through administrative failures could have been invested in housing, support for vulnerable adults, road safety, child poverty reduction, or environmental improvements.

As Haringey’s financial situation deteriorates, the council’s narrative of blaming external factors is wearing thin. While no one denies the challenges facing local government, the evidence of self-inflicted financial wounds is hard to deny. The key questions now are: who is being held accountable for these costly errors, and what fundamental changes will be made to ensure basic financial duties are carried out?