Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
"London council named as England's 'most rotten' borough"
Haringey has been named as England's 'most rotten' borough.
Yesterday, The Standard reported that, per 100,000 of population in Haringey, there were 20 upheld, formal Complaints.
This, on the basis of data from the Local Government Ombudsman.
This is the second year running that the London Borough of Culture 2027 has secured the top place for the number of Complaints upheld by the Ombudsman.
The previous leadership was a menace to public money. They (we) made multi-million pound losses on municipal property wheeling-and-dealing. The current leadership has since failed to get a robust grip on finances.
Are any residents surprised?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THE Standard's headline (Rotten Borough) is eye-catching if not sensational. Headlines are written by Sub-Editors whose job it is to summarise and yes, to attract attention to reporters' stories.
How many would trouble to read beyond a headline, "Statistics abstracted from the office of the local government ombudsman with special reference to Haringey Council" ?!
Haringey council has an unusually poor record for residents' complaints and Megan Howe's story does deserve attention, especially from the CEO and leader.
I think it's important to try to get past (and to read past) the headline and to consider the substance of the report.
Nearly 40 years ago I chose to live in Haringey, the Borough. At the time, its ruling council had a general reputation for high rates and poor services. I have not been disappointed!
I agree that it is important to keep a sense of perspective. In this context, it is to distinguish between being a resident in a Borough and enjoying the good things of living in a locality (such as Borough's many green space) on the one hand, and on the other hand, the objective performance of the local council.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton
-
Clive, I'd love the chance to vote next May on one or two substantive issues. One of them relates to what you and I decribed as dubious property transctions under the previous Council. At least in my opinion rottenness was no exaggeration for transactions which led to Haringey wasting millions of pounds.
So my first decision on Voting Day next May will be whether or not I walk two streets away and vote. Which will entirely depend on a previously stated willingness by varied party candidates to be open and honest about taking steps to prevent somethng similar happening in the future. Linked to that will be whether or not the candidates understand (or not) that open clear honest and prompt answers to Freedom of Information Act questions is an important matter.
Truth should be important or even vital for elected councillors. If it's not then the apparent growing lack of trust in our politicians is all too understandable.
-
-
ALAN, by next May, I expect that few election candidates will know anything of the deals that did such damage to council coffers.
They are unlikely to know about the multi-million pound losses on the many rotten council property deals struck over 36 months under the previous leadership, let alone residents.
Candidates are unlikely to know of the Buss Report, or that the full Report of the Buss investigation was sent to the Police.
The losses were not, as it were, a victimless crime: the council's financial status today would be less parlous without the series of "dubious" deals. The council's position would likely be that it has all been dealt with (rather than—closer to the mark—acknowledge the chronic culture of secrecy.
And by May 2026, the council spotlight will be on the following year's Borough of Culture.
.
-
-
If only a few election candidates know anything about the shoddy dodgy property dealings then I suggest, Clive that you and I try to enlighten them. Adding some photos and links to e.g. various reports and the Ham & High newspaper.
Also you might like to invite them to view the video you shot when invited into the Enfield factory. YouTube would probably host it. Fresh photos of the shoddy shady property sites may be helpful too.
But there are still months to go. Time enough for public candidates to get publicly candid.Do you perhaps recall the election song and dance in the wonderful film "Citizen Kane"?
The Borough of Culture may benefit from a new musical set in a massive loss-making empty Enfield factory. It could liven up the next local election.
-
-
-
£3,263,000: total losses on one deal?
THE crystallised, capital loss on the old empty Enfield factory "Shaftesbury House" was £1,900,000.
This is a sum that the council could not hide. But the other costs incurred take this to over £3 million. All for no benefit for Haringey residents whatsoever.
- There was the opportunity cost of interest compounded over four years on £6,100,000 of public money. At a modest 3% p.a. interest forgone, the compounded loss of interest on our money comes to around £868,000
- The continuous presence of Global Guardians for four years was probably one of the biggest ongoing costs; also, Haringey Council paid Business Rates to Enfield Council, plus utilities, periodic surveys and "reactive" maintenance ("to fulfil statutory obligations")
- These annual costs "soon stabilised" at about £110,000 p.a.
- It was really nice that the costs stabilised; over four year and a half years the total came to a stable £495,000
£495,000 running costs
£868,000 loss of interest
£1,900,000 loss on sale
=======
£3,263,000 total losses to public funds
Efforts to uncover details were met by "EXEMPT", procrastination or stonewalling from council staff who lack accountability. All public money. Incinerated.
The council has a duty to spend our money prudently and to be accountable, but as hinted at in the Buss Report, Haringey Council does not take this seriously enough. There is evidence of recklessness or irresponsibility. It's rotten.
.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
