amazing

Written by: Daniel McMorrow (dmcmorrow@mage-net.net)

Attachment and Sources Comparison Analysis
CQC Local Authority Assessment for London Borough of Haringey
The linked document above—evaluates adult social care performance across the borough. The notebook sources contain your correspondence, pre-action protocol documents, care plan extracts, and councillor communications regarding your ongoing dispute with Haringey Council.
The assessment’s findings directly mirror the exact issues, delays, and procedural failings documented in your correspondence:
In the February 2025 assessment of the London Borough of Haringey, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) rated the local authority as Requires Improvement (overall score of 56 out of 100). Seven out of nine quality statements received a score of 2 ("Evidence shows some shortfalls").

The primary areas where the CQC identified concerns and shortfalls include:

1. Waiting Times and Assessment Backlogs

  • Care Act Assessments and Reviews: As of October 2024, 248 people were waiting for an assessment (median wait of 55 days, maximum of 523 days), and 1,600 people were waiting for a review (median wait of 190 days, maximum of 882 days). Only 37.22% of long-term support clients had received a planned or unplanned review, below the England average of 57.14%.

  • Financial Assessments: There was a significant backlog, with 553 financial assessments awaiting completion for over 28 days. The median waiting time was 174 days, and the maximum was 464 days. Delays in financial assessments and billing were also highlighted in a 2024 Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR).

  • Occupational Therapy (OT) and Equipment: 420 people were on the waiting list, excluding 600 assessments that had recently been outsourced to a third party. The median wait time was 172 days (maximum 465 days), delaying necessary home adaptations and aids.

  • Independent Advocacy: Frontline staff reported delays in allocating independent advocates (with waits over six weeks in some cases), causing knock-on delays to assessments and reviews.

2. Support for Unpaid Carers

  • Negative Feedback and Low Satisfaction: Carer feedback was predominantly negative regarding the availability, quality, and outcomes of assessments. Only 23.29% of carers were satisfied with social services (compared to the England average of 36.83%).

  • Lack of Involvement: Only 48.15% of unpaid carers felt involved or consulted as much as they wanted to be in discussions (significantly worse than the England average of 66.56%). Joint assessments were inconsistently offered.

  • Respite and Wellbeing: Carers reported significant difficulties accessing respite and breaks, leaving them at risk of breakdown and negatively impacting their physical and mental health.

  • Outdated Strategy: The local authority’s Carers Strategy was out of date (covering 2020–2023), although a new one was in development.

3. Contact, Communication, and Accessibility

  • Accessing the Council: People and partners reported that contacting the council by phone to request assessments or support was time-consuming and difficult.

  • Information & Advice: Only 42.65% of carers found it easy to access information and advice (national average: 59.06%). Partners noted the website was hard to navigate and lacked information in community languages.

  • Reasonable Adjustments and Translation: Despite 30% of residents not having English as a first language, translation and interpretation were inconsistently applied by frontline teams (e.g., using informal online tools instead of formal translation services).

  • Sensory and Learning Disabilities: Use of easy-read formats was inconsistent. Support for sensory impairments was constrained by having only one rehabilitation officer for the borough.

4. Local Care Market Capacity and Provision

  • Out-of-Borough Placements: In-borough provision was limited, leading to 45.8% of placements being outside the borough (with around 30% outside the North Central London sub-region).

  • Gaps in Specialized Care: Significant shortages existed for care homes, dementia-friendly services, specialized accommodation for autistic people, placements for complex needs/challenging behaviour, and mental health move-on accommodation.

  • Hospital Discharge Delays: Delays occurred in sourcing nursing care and supported living (averaging 27-day waits from plan agreement) due to market capacity, sometimes keeping people medically fit for discharge in hospital beds.

  • Quality Oversight of Distant Placements: The council lacked a clear, robust process for monitoring the quality of placements located outside the North Central London (NCL) system beyond light-touch, non-statutory reviews.

5. Safe Systems, Transitions, and Safeguarding Communication

  • Hospital Discharges: Partners and a SAR thematic analysis raised concerns over communication, timeliness, and discharge planning for individuals with complex needs or those detained under the Mental Health Act.

  • Transitions to Adulthood: Experiences of young people moving from Children's to Adult services were mixed, with some facing lengthy waits and families having to chase teams for assessment outcomes.

  • Safeguarding Feedback & Follow-up: VCSE partners and care providers consistently reported that they did not receive adequate updates or outcomes after submitting safeguarding referrals. Internal audits showed only 71% of referrers were informed of Section 42 enquiry outcomes.

  • Processes Not Always Followed: CQC noted instances where allegations of abuse were recorded during assessments but were not formally escalated or raised as safeguarding concerns.

6. Coproduction, Community Trust, and Complaints Handling

  • Weak Coproduction: Coproduction was not well embedded. Partners felt past involvement was tokenistic and reported mistrust in the community after previously coproduced initiatives were halted without adequate communication.

  • Workforce Pressures: High turnover and heavy reliance on agency/locum staff (26% of the adult social care workforce in July 2024) created continuity issues for people using services.

  • Remedying Complaints (LGSCO): In detailed investigations by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), the local authority was late in implementing agreed remedies 50% of the time, compared to the national average of 25.34%.