This series of articles brings together recent, documented failures at Hillingdon Council. Individually, each might be dismissed as an error or an oversight. Taken together, and set alongside formal audit warnings and resident complaints, they raise a more serious question about whether the Council’s systems of governance, financial control and accountability are functioning as they should.
Should we be worried?
When a Council cannot publish a correct notice for a simple road closure, is the last borough in London to publish its accounts, pays more than other councils for software in secret, and claims a £150 million loan has “no cost” to residents, should we be worried?
When it writes off debts for former councillors while stonewalling residents asking simple questions about £3.7m in pension cuts, when senior officers promise answers for months only to deliver silence, while planning inspectors overturn decisions because the Council is counting houses that don’t exist, when it plans developments based on flawed surveys and ignores warnings from its own auditors.. are we right to ask: is this just bad luck, or is something broken?
External auditors have warned of “systemic weaknesses” and “unreliable forecasts”. Internal Audit has issued Nil Assurance ratings in key areas, meaning basic controls could not be relied upon. Residents have complained about late or missing financial information that limits meaningful scrutiny. At the same time, the Council’s own risk register identifies an ongoing, highest-level risk to its ability to balance its budget – even as long-term debt is passed to future taxpayers.
The question these articles ask is not who is to blame, but whether the problems that led here have truly been fixed – or merely postponed, at lasting cost to the people who live in this borough.
Read more of our February 2026 series
- Introduction: Mistakes, misjudgements, or systemic breakdown?
- 1. The £150m Bailout: “Accounting Adjustments” vs Reality
- 2. The Culture of “Late”: From Accounts to Budgets
- 3. The “Theo’s Café” Scandal: Claims of cronyism and confirmed secrecy
- 4. The Silent Treatment: 12 Weeks and Counting
- 5. Putting Residents First? Not always
- 6. An addiction to “Special Urgency” – for secrecy or last minute work?
- 7. The secret £3.3m planning system
- 8. Decision-Making Based on Flawed Data
- 9. Are they taking heed of the “Section 24” warnings?
- Summary: The Case for Concern – is something broken at our Civic Centre?
- What Now? What do you think? You have until Wednesday to tell the Council
Comments are closed.