poor communication and lack of promised updates regarding ongoing complaints and issues,
Written by: Daniel McMorrow (dmcmorrow@mage-net.net)- Submitted
- Acknowledged
- Response Due
- Response Actual
Background
Acknowledgment
The complaint was raised on , and acknowledged on representing an administrative delay of 43 days.
The acknowledgment refers vaguely to an appropriate officer without identifying who handled the matter, making it impossible to verify their remit or competence.
The acknowledgement fails to clarify whether this was handled under the ASC complaints procedure.
Response
Standard public-sector defensiveness
The response states...If you are unhappy with my response, you can ask our Feedback & Resolutions team to review your complaint at the second stage of our internal complaint’s process. Please let the team know what your desired outcomes are, this normally must be done within six months of the response. Their contact details are: Email: S2Complaints@Haringey.gov.uk.
Facts
The response states...On 27th May 2026, Tracy Park wrote to Mr McMorrow explaining that she would act as a main point of contact to help ensure communication was more coordinated and supportive. The email also advised that complaint correspondence would continue to be managed through the appropriate complaints channels and stated: [...]
Since that time, several of the issues raised by Mr McMorrow have continued to form part of ongoing formal disputes, including those that sit with our legal department. The matters referenced in your complaint substantially overlap with issues that have been progressed through the Council's legal processes. As such, information gathering, responses and updates have necessarily been coordinated through the Council's Legal Services team to ensure that information provided remains accurate, consistent, complete and reflective of the most up-to-date position. This approach helps avoid conflicting information being issued through multiple channels while formal matters remain under consideration.
It is also true I have submitted a pre-action protocol letter. The entire pre-action process is designed to prevent legal action.
There was a delay of two weeks and five days between Tracy Park's email and submission of my pre-action protocol letter. Had she maintained basic professional communication and provided regular updates, formal legal steps might have been avoided entirely. Furthermore, despite submitting a formal Pre-Action Protocol letter, I have yet to receive a substantive response from the Council's legal team.
Advocate
Outcome
They either respond and it gets referred to the LGO with all the mistakes Or they don't respond and it gets referred to the LGO under the 16 week rule with all the mistakes