Havering social care defence after CQC report — Havering 2026

Key Points

• Havering Residents Association (HRA) says Havering’s Social Care team “have done the absolute best they can with the resources available.”
• HRA argues the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Ofsted do not factor council funding levels into inspections, disadvantaging underfunded councils.
• Councillor Gillian Ford has responded to the Leader of Havering Council’s article on the CQC report.
• HRA lists a series of investments and initiatives it says were delivered: children’s services improvements, invest-to-save schemes (supported living accommodation), a 300-place SEND school, in-borough respite and children’s homes, hospital social workers to address discharge, discharge-to-access schemes, collaboration with care providers, Carers Strategy and Carers Board, advocacy and dementia services, and funding for volunteer services and Citizens Advice.
• HRA notes inconsistencies in CQC reporting, claiming similar schemes were criticised in Havering but commended in neighbouring boroughs’ reports.
• HRA concedes more investment and action are needed, including in children’s services.
• HRA criticises Reform Group promises (re-opening libraries, stopping the data centre, increasing Section 92 officers, high-street improvements, housing delivery, clearing Launders Lane, stopping fly-tipping, reviewing car parking charges) as potentially unaffordable within current council finances and urges delivery rather than promises.

Havering (East London Times) July 2, 2026 – Councillor Gillian Ford, speaking for the Havering Residents Association, has publicly defended the borough’s social care services and criticised both the Care Quality Commission’s approach to inspection and political opponents’ pledges following the publication of a recent CQC report.

What does HRA say about Havering’s social care performance and funding?

As reported by Gillian Ford of the Havering Residents Association, HRA said the borough’s social care team

“have done the absolute best they can with the resources available to them.”

Ford emphasised that Havering inherited social care services that had transitioned out of COVID-19 mode into a system facing rising complexity of need and increased costs, while receiving chronic underfunding from central government.

Does HRA argue the CQC and Ofsted assessments are unfair?

HRA contends that the CQC and Ofsted “do not consider the amount of funding a Council has available to them,” meaning inspections compare councils without accounting for differing financial baselines. The association said this structural omission puts lower-funded councils — including Havering — at a disadvantage when their services are assessed against better-resourced boroughs.

What improvements and schemes does HRA say were delivered during its tenure?

HRA listed multiple programmes and investments it says were implemented to stabilise and improve services:

• Investment and improvements within children’s services.
• Invest-to-save schemes including supported living accommodation.
• Development and construction plans for a 300-place SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) school.
• Expansion of in-borough respite provision and establishment of additional children’s homes.
• Reintroduction of social workers onto hospital wards to address patient discharge problems.
• Discharge-to-access schemes aimed at easing delayed discharges.
• Collaborative work with local care providers.
• Establishment of a Carers Strategy and formation of a Carers Board.
• Publicity campaigns to register carers and provide training and support.
• Enhancement of the advocacy service and delivery of a new Dementia Strategy.
• Funding for Havering Volunteer Centre and Citizens Advice.

Which specific criticisms does HRA make about the CQC report’s treatment of similar schemes?

HRA argued that identical or similar schemes have been judged differently elsewhere: a scheme used in Havering was criticised in the borough’s CQC report while being commended in a neighbouring borough’s report. The association said this inconsistency forms part of

“national concerns over the quality of CQC reporting and the inconsistencies.”

Has HRA accepted any responsibility or acknowledged shortcomings?

Yes. While defending staff and recent investments, HRA acknowledged that “more doesn’t need to be done” (sic) — that is, more must be done — and that further investment in both adult social care and children’s services is required. The statement accepts the need for continuing action while framing much of the current shortfall as arising from long-term underfunding and demographic pressures.

What political claims has HRA challenged from rival groups?

HRA criticised promises made by the Reform group (the Council’s political opponents) as reported in the Leader’s article; Ford said Reform’s pledges — re-opening three libraries closed under HRA decisions, stopping a data centre project, increasing the number of Section 92 officers, improving high streets, building houses, clearing the Launders Lane site, stopping fly-tipping and reviewing car parking charges — are being presented as achievable “all within the Council’s finances.”

HRA said these commitments were made without clear funding plans and challenged Reform to demonstrate how they would deliver them.

What has Havering Council’s leader said, and how did HRA respond?

As reported in the Leader’s article (Leader of the Council), the Council leader issued commentary on the recent CQC findings.

HRA said the Leader’s statement omitted mention of the HRA’s investments and improvements and did not reference the Council’s formal challenge to the CQC over the reported outcomes. HRA emphasised that it had lodged a challenge to aspects of the CQC report where it believed outcomes were unfairly assessed.

What specific examples of inconsistency did HRA cite in its challenge to CQC?

HRA highlighted that at least one scheme used in Havering was criticised by the CQC, while the same approach was commended in a neighbouring borough’s CQC assessment.

The association used this example to underline broader concerns about inconsistent reporting standards across boroughs, which it said has generated

“national concerns over the quality of CQC reporting.”

Who are the primary actors and stakeholders mentioned in the statement?

• Gillian Ford, Councillor and representative of the Havering Residents Association (author of the response).
• The Leader of Havering Council (author of the earlier article HRA replied to).
• The Care Quality Commission (inspectorate whose report prompted the debate).
• Ofsted (mentioned as another inspectorate that similarly does not account for funding disparities).
• The Reform group (political opponents whose promises were criticised).
• Local service users, carers, social care staff, and partner organisations such as Havering Volunteer Centre and Citizens Advice, referenced as beneficiaries or partners in HRA’s initiatives.

What are the factual admissions about service changes?

HRA acknowledges having taken difficult decisions, including the closure of three libraries. The association says those closures were part of necessary budgetary choices while emphasising it also pursued schemes to support vulnerable people and build capacity in SEND provision and carers’ support.

Which services did HRA claim to have reintroduced or expanded and why?

HRA said it reintroduced social workers onto hospital wards specifically to address patient discharge issues — a move aimed at reducing delays between hospital discharge and placement or support in the community. It also cited discharge-to-access schemes, intended to streamline transitions and reduce pressure on acute settings.

What does HRA say it expects from political opponents moving forward?

HRA concluded by saying:

“We took tough decisions, now let’s see if they can deliver all of their promises.”

The association is calling for accountability from Reform and other political actors, asking for clarity on financing and deliverability rather than rhetorical pledges.

Background of the particular development

The Care Quality Commission inspects local authority social care services periodically to assess quality, safety and effectiveness. Havering’s inspection followed several years of rising demand for adult social care and increased complexity in children’s services, trends common across many English councils after the pandemic.

Councils face demographic shifts (an ageing population and increased numbers of children with complex needs), and Havering’s leaders say these pressures have not been matched by proportional increases in central government funding.

HRA argues the borough inherited services in a post-COVID state with rising need, and that its tenure saw a mix of cost pressures and targeted investments — the very investments HRA lists as evidence of attempts to stabilise services.

The dispute over the CQC report mirrors a national debate about how inspectorates incorporate context, including funding and demographic factors, into their assessments.

Prediction: How could this development affect Havering residents, carers and local services?

• Short term: Public confidence in local social care may be shaken by critical inspection findings, prompting increased scrutiny of council spending, decisions and service outcomes. Carers and service users could seek clarity on where resources will be focused next, and staff morale may be affected by the public debate.
• Medium term: If the council successfully challenges aspects of the CQC report and secures political consensus or additional funding, some of the HRA’s invest-to-save schemes (SEND school, supported living, respite) could proceed and ease pressure on services. Conversely, if funding gaps remain unaddressed, services could face further strain, leading to more difficult decisions on closures or reprioritisation.
• Political impact: The dispute may shape local election conversations and council priorities. Reform’s pledges, if pursued without clear funding plans, could create fiscal stress; if they are achievable and delivered, they could reshape local services and facilities. HRA’s challenge to opponents creates a conditional test — promises will be measured against deliverability.
• For carers and families: The stated investments in carers’ support, advocacy and dementia strategy, if implemented, would improve access to training and services; however, inconsistent inspection findings risk diverting attention or resources while the council responds to scrutiny.
• For providers and partners: Continued collaboration between the council and local care providers will be essential to reduce hospital discharge delays and develop in-borough capacity; uncertainty in funding and reputational pressure could complicate commissioning and partnership work.