Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Council: Facing the financial challenges
Hi all
Please see a link to our new video outlining the reality of the financial challenges faced by Haringey Council, our commitment to transparency and working with residents to find solutions and to take the fight to national government as we call for fairer funding for local services.
You can watch the video here.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
A revamped Civic Centre would be a nice-to-have and indirectly, it would benefit residents. All of course, if money permits.
In 2021 the cost estimate was £24 million and later climbed to £54 million.
And then it went up again.
Three years ago the Tottenham & Wood Green Independent reported:
Haringey Council approves £65m civic centre revamp
However, the council had already burnt a big chunk from their Capital Budget through in a serious of undocumented, irregular or corrupt deals, or the capital needed was borrowed, or a combination.
The scheme is likely to have been pushed forward by council employees ("policy compliant"), assisted by feeble governance.
Borough households have to live within their means, but previous (imprudent) Administrations showed a lack of restraint with public money. If not recklessness and irresponsibility.
IMO, if accurate records are kept, then residents deserve to be told about its current financial status.
-
Permalink Reply by Cllr Jo Kuper
-
Thanks, Nigel. Cllr Johann Beckford is away for the next couple of weeks, but am sure will be happy to respond more when he's back. What I will say is we are absolutely committed to understanding every line of the budget, and bringing down the EFS is a priority. At the same time, we have to be sure that we don't see further disproportionate impact on communities who are already struggling with the impacts of 15-years of austerity.
-
-
Sorry! The Exceptional Financial Support loans that the council has had to take out to balance the books which is a legal requirement. Despite being needed to ensure the council can provide statutory services, these have an interest rate of 7%...
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
Cllr Kuper,
Thank you for explaining EFS as being "exceptional" loans.
If that loan money is applied to the Council's overall spend, then you would have to agree that it is not obviously correct to tell us it is "... needed to ensure the council can provide statutory services" .
Even if the proceeds of the loan were ring-fenced to statutory services in Haringey's accounts [are they?], finding that principal 7m elsewhere would mean that the Council wouldn't have had to incur the debt to provide those services.
Who exactly decided to borrow and at that rate, rather than save or find the money from other expenditure lines? Why?
And to fulfil Cllr Beckford's promises of fiscal responsibility and transparency, will you and colleagues commit to repay or at least not increase that debt in this term?
-
-
Hi Nigel, thanks again for the input. Johann may be able to provide more context than I can, but all decisions to borrow under the EFS were made by the previous administration. However, what I do know is that council's have a legal obligation to balance the books, and when they can't this is where EFS comes in.
-
-
Cllr Kuper,
Thank you for your response.
May I press the point: will you and colleagues first confirm that the EFS money is only spent on the statutory services [care, for example] and that the new, responsible and transparent Council will repay or at last not increase the EFS sought this term?
By the way, it is reported that by dint of tight control of spending, Hammersmith and Fulham Council has met its care expenditure entirely out of revenue.
-
-
we are absolutely committed to understanding every
line of the budget, and bringing down the EFS is a priority————
Jo, good to see this!
I was shocked to read in your other post, that Exceptional Financial Support costs us 7%.
Currently, many Haringey residents would personally be able borrow money at 100 Basis Points less than that.
Does this not suggest that the lender to our Council has included a significant risk-premium?
————
In previous litigation that was Decided in January last year, the council is recorded as having written to me at Para 40:
The financial details of the Council are sensitive by definition, …
The Tribunal Judge appeared to take a dim view of this claim, noting at Para 58 that it was "not in any event a FOIA exemption".
What is sensitive beyond doubt, was political and career embarrassment.
The council forget they spend public money, but not always in the public interest. The least the staff can do is to account for it, fully, honestly and accurately.
The local council has long been obsessed with secrecy, especially over its finances. Sometimes, excuses are offered up in order to conceal mistakes, incompetence or worse. Redaction in FoI answers was sometimes reflexive. In FoI requests, council employees decide the Public Interest Test; alternatively, marking their own homework.
The council's ill-considered claim betrayed an outlook that could be ascribed to a family business, where the managers have forgotten who their customers are, and the only shareholders are the bosses and staff.
-
-
Thanks, Clive. I am still trying to make sense of many aspects of the budget, so for specifics I will defer to Johann to respond for when he is back. I will say that overall our aim is to be more transparent and in so doing, also reduce the need for FOI requests, for which the burden of seeking information falls unfairly on residents in my opinion. While there are obviously areas which are sensitive, I also feel that a lot of info which is sought (across all sorts of areas) should be readily available.
-
-
… overall our aim is to be more transparent and in so doing, also reduce the need for FOI requests, …
<— Jo, yes, this is rational!
———
In current (undecided) litigation now following my earlier Tribunal case, I refer to a governance concept called Failure Demand.
This is the demand on a service organisation generated by their failure to do something.
———
In the course of one of my requests for information from the "Service", one Haringey Council Internal Review took 5 months. This is seen at Para 15 of the Judge's Decision.
I viewed the five-month delay as a deliberate tactic. I took it as reflecting embarrassment. It had the effect of reinforcing my determination to try to get to the bottom of the huge losses of our money in multiple, irregular property deals during a 36-month period.
Allowing for interest and inflation, those losses of several years ago may mean our council has roughly £20 million less to spend. Today.
———
Some council employees seem to regard Requests made under the FoI Act, as nuisance and irritation. One slap-dash, sloppy response—that may have come via the park Events Team—could be described as insolent. I understand the officer was given words of advice.
The over-burdened FoI Team acts as a clearing house.
I have the impression the FoI Team lacks sufficient respect from other council departments and I'm not sure the current CEO has sufficient handle on this.
———
I agree that the need for information requests ideally, should reduce.
In the meantime—and rather than appearing to resent FoI requests—Haringey Council should welcome lawful requests. After decades of Labour indulgence, this would be a difficult culture change.
Between four-yearly elections, FoI Requests are one of the very few means of holding councils to account. And, which has the force of law behind them.
FoI Requests can represent a seam of gold to be mined, in order to make a council more efficient. A positive attitude would recognise that, if a member of the public has gone to the trouble of writing a lawful FoI, then Requests can be helpful.
Bon courage!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
