Government issues formal warning over “systemic weaknesses”
Last August, at a public Audit Committee meeting, Hillingdon’s interim finance chief was asked about the state of the council’s finance computer system. Andy Goodwin didn’t reach for a script or rely on any accountancy jargon. He said it “has been a bit of a car crash.”
It’s rare to hear a council officer say something that plainly, in public, on the record. A year on, the government has now said much the same thing about the council as a whole – just in more formal language.
On 15 July 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) issued Hillingdon with a formal Best Value Notice – and that is not the kind of ‘best value’ you’d find on a supermarket shelf.
In this article, we look at what it actually says, and how it lines up with what we’ve reported over the past year.
What the letter says is wrong at Hillingdon Council
The letter is blunt about where it thinks the fault lies, and it isn’t shy about it.
It points to the seven statutory recommendations issued by external auditors Ernst & Young in July 2025.
It also cites the “no assurance” internal audit opinion for 2024/25 – meaning the council’s own auditors couldn’t confirm its basic financial controls were working.
It notes an independent review by CIPFA, carried out in May 2026 as a condition of the council’s bailout, which found “a lack of challenge, clarity of strategic direction and organisational grip.”
And it raises separate concerns about the council’s organisational culture.
Put plainly: this is a government department telling a council, in writing, that it doesn’t have proper grip on its own finances, its own governance, or its own culture. That’s the story. Everything else is detail.
What is a Best Value Notice?
All councils have a legal duty to secure continuous improvement. A Best Value Notice is a formal, published notification that ministers have concerns about a council meeting that duty, and want direct, ongoing assurance of improvement.
It’s worth saying plainly what it isn’t. The letter states it’s “issued outside the statutory powers held by the Secretary of State… to inspect or intervene.” It’s not a takeover, and it doesn’t change how the council runs day to day.
But it’s not just a slap on the wrist either: it’s published on GOV.UK, shared with the council’s own external auditor, and the letter warns that continuing to fall short “may be judged to contribute to Best Value failure” – at which point those statutory powers do come into play. It will be reviewed after 12 months. Hillingdon was one of only four councils issued such a notice, alongside Shropshire, Somerset, and a revised notice for Newham.
The one line about money – and why it isn’t the story
Of the letter’s four stated reasons, only the first touches finance at all: concern about the council’s “relative scale and forecasted reliance on ongoing Exceptional Financial Support” – how dependent it’s become on bailouts, not how much money it’s given. The other three are entirely about how the council manages and governs itself.
Some councillors argue that Hillingdon is treated unfairly by central government on funding, and that this – not mismanagement – explains the council’s position. That’s a fair question to debate in general about how local government is funded. But it simply isn’t what this letter is about. The Notice makes no comment, one way or the other, on the fairness or adequacy of Hillingdon’s funding. It just doesn’t touch that question.
Hillingdon’s own statement to the press, issued the same day, said: “This Best Value Notice reflects the financial challenges the council has been working through during recent months. We are pleased the Government has recognised not only the progress we’ve already made, but also the cumulative impact funding pressures over a number of years have had on the council’s finances.”
That’s the council’s choice of framing, not the government’s. Nowhere in the letter does MHCLG mention funding pressures, or anything resembling that phrase. What the letter actually addresses – governance, financial management, culture, assurance – is what we’ve set out above.
The council’s statement went further, saying the department “is confident that continuous improvement can be sustained without statutory intervention.” That isn’t what the letter says either. Its actual wording is far more cautious: a failure to improve “may be judged to contribute to Best Value failure,” at which point the Secretary of State “will consider using their statutory powers as appropriate.” That’s a warning, not a vote of confidence.
Read the council’s press comments alongside the letter itself, and judge the gap for yourself.
Political reaction
For balance, we asked Danny Beales, the Labour MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, for his response. He told us directly:
“The Government’s decision to issue a Best Value Notice is a damning indictment of Hillingdon Council’s leadership.”
“The need for intervention from central Government is a result of years of financial mismanagement, poor governance and oversight, and a complete lack of political will to change course.”
“What is perhaps most concerning is the Conservatives’ refusal to admit just how serious this is. An attempt to spin this as positive is indicative of just how much this intervention is needed.”
That is a political opponent’s view of the council’s leadership, and readers should weigh it as such. But the specific “spin” charge tracks something we can check ourselves: the council’s own statement claims the government is “confident” that no statutory intervention will be needed, which, as set out above, is not what the letter itself says.
So is this just Andy Goodwin’s “car crash” again, in a suit?
More or less, yes – with one distinction worth keeping straight. Goodwin’s comment was about one system, Oracle. The government’s finding is broader: about governance, scrutiny and culture across the whole council.
But the specific fault he described – a finance system so unreliable that officers couldn’t get accurate budget information out of it, and had to resort to manual workarounds – is exactly the kind of thing the Notice is pointing to when it talks about “weaknesses in the quality, reliability and use of financial information.”
Does this back up what we’ve reported?
Closely – and here we look at how and why, rather than just saying so:
- The seven statutory recommendations are Ernst & Young’s Section 24 recommendations, issued in July 2025 and made public that August – see Significant concerns about Hillingdon’s finances from Ernst & Young and our Glossary of names and terms.
- The “no assurance” internal audit opinion for 2024/25 matches the finding reported to the Audit Committee that we covered in A Timeline of Warnings, Shifting Explanations, and Internal Failures, where EY’s own auditor called it a finding he’d “only ever heard twice” in his career.
- The CIPFA finding on a lack of “organisational grip” is new detail, but it says in official language what we argued in Are they taking heed of the “Section 24” warnings? and our February 2026 article Mistakes, misjudgements, or systemic breakdown? – that the council’s response to its own auditors has been reassurance rather than reform.
- The concern over organisational culture echoes EY’s own language about “low morale” and “indications of a blame culture” within the finance team, which we quoted at the time.
This is, in effect, the government’s own confirmation – through the external auditor, internal audit, and an independent CIPFA review – of the same picture we’ve been setting out since last November.
The letter doesn’t touch on the restructured scrutiny committees
The letter doesn’t mention the council’s restructured Select Committees, its planning IT contract, or the Cowley Meeting Hall lease – those are separate stories we’ve reported on their own facts, not things this letter itself found.
What happens next
Hillingdon must now engage with the Department at least quarterly, publish regular improvement board updates to Cabinet, and keep implementing EY’s recommendations. The Notice stays in place for at least 12 months. The government has been clear that receiving funding – including the £150m Exceptional Financial Support already agreed – doesn’t change the status of the Notice; the two are managed separately.
Councillor Kaushik Banerjee, who resigned the Conservative whip in May, put it more plainly than any government letter needed to: “managerial avoidance presented as financial prudence.”
For a year, this Association has asked the council to be straight with residents about its finances and governance, often met with silence, missed deadlines, or deflection onto national pressures. The government is now watching Hillingdon Council closely. As residents, we should be watching just as closely – and asking, loudly, what happens next.
Full text of the Best Value Notice is available here.
Comments are closed.