Agenda and draft minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 7 below).

There was no urgent business. 

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were no declarations of interest.  

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

There were none.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 29 January 2026 as a correct record.

To review the action tracker.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held 29 January 2026 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

In relation to a query regarding statutory recommendation, the meeting heard that no notifications had been received from KPMG. If this was to arrive, this would be a letter that will come into either the Corporate Director of Finance & Resources (Section 151 Officer), the Chief Executive or the Leader of the Council. The Council would then need to respond to it depending on the content. A public response would be provided which would likely be to the Cabinet. The Audit Committee would likely get some oversight because KPMG reported into it. Should the Council get a statutory recommendation, the monitoring of the response would come into the Audit Committee. All this was dependant on if a statutory recommendation was made and the wording that was received.

Progress on commercial property had been made in terms of working through the outstanding rent reviews and lease reviews. It was not complete and a deadline for both commercial property and operational property was in June 2026. A paper would be submitted to the Committee which covered all aspects of commercial property.

This report provides Audit Committee with details of the progress made by Housing Services in progressing the recommendations made by the audit conducted by Mazars, the Council's independent internal auditors, that was undertaken on Voids and Follow Up of Lettings and received a Limited Assurance rating.

The report also provides a summary of the work that has been undertaken to improve our position and approach to voids, including the key risks that are being managed by the service.

Mr Neehara Wijeyesekera, Assistant Director Housing Management, Ms Rachel Sharpe, Director of Housing and Mr Scott Kay, AD Repairs and Compliance introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         It was important to track the ‘key-to-key’ process. This was when somebody wanted to terminate a tenancy or leave their property to the point where somebody else gets the keys and moves in. There were a lot of different services involved in this. The Council was trying to break down each bit of the process and look at how each bit worked. To terminate a tenancy, an in-person appointment would need to be made at the customer service centre and there were two forms to fill in. This was before the Council could look at the property to work out what work needed to be done. The intention of the strategic group was to sort out what should be the sensible time targets for each part of the process. The Council had been measuring voids in terms of total numbers at any one time rather than time processes.

·         The last part of the process was the point at which the property was ready to be let, go onto the choice based letting system (or allocated by another method) before being signed up by a new tenant.

·         The Council had looked at average timescales and the focus in recent years had been on the number of voids needed to be reduced. The review being undertaken would set out the steps individually. The numbers at present would take into account the whole process, but it would also take into account all of the voids, some of which had taken a long time because they were in programs such as regeneration programs or required major works. The Council wanted to be able to report on voids that were genuine turnaround voids as opposed to skewing figures from voids that would be put into a holding pattern for regeneration schemes.

·         A query was raised that it was not clear how many voids there were, how long it took for an evaluation. It was also not clear how many people were on the waiting list. Generally, more information was required. In response, the meeting heard that a paper would be circulated and the queries could be raised at the next Committee.

·         There were some difficulties in coming up with reliable data. There was reference to some changes needed on the NEC system. Voids were being tracked. There were 403 voids, but that was not all the voids. Only a certain number of properties were counted. The Council was committed to try and make an improvement with the issue.

·         The new build properties were becoming available and this was a positive for the Council. In 2024/25, 451 new build properties were signed up. Up to the end of January, there were another 151 new build properties signed up. Around about 40% to 50% of all new build properties had an impact on the stock from where people who had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report provides an update to the Audit Committee on the Council’s treasury management activities and performance for the six months ending 31^st December 2025, in accordance with the CIPFA Code.

Ms Taryn Eves, Corporate Director of Finance & Resources (Section 151 Officer) introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to the Civic Centre, this was just one of the capital schemes within the overall capital program and the full details of this was not included in the report, but had been reported in the quarterly report that was submitted to Cabinet and to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. There had been no ‘slippage’ in relation to the Civic Centre, but there had been some around schools’ estate, roads and some around the regeneration schemes.

·         In relation to the LOBO loans, the Council had £100 million worth of it, before reducing it down to £50 million. This consisted of £40 million with one provider and £10 million with another. There was also a possibility that the Council might buy off the £40 million. The Council periodically engaged with its advisers, ArlingClose, who acted on the Council’s behalf and approached the providers of the loans. So far, the response from the providers was that buying out would be quite expensive and not in the Council’s interest. The Council periodically engaged with its advisers to progress the matter. 

·         In relation to exceptional financial support, there was a £10 million loan related to the financial year 2024/25. When the Council closed the accounts, it was £10 million short. In 2025/26, when the Council set its budget and it got the in-principal agreement in March 2025, this was for £37 million. When the Council forecast its position in 2025/26, the Council forecast an overspend on top of the £37 million. The quarter 3 report submitted to Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee reported this at £19 million - a significant improvement since quarter 1. It seemed all the actions that the Council was taking was starting to have an impact. However, this position would still be £19 million higher than the £37 million. As the Council only had £37 million in-year agreed by Government, it needed to submit a revised application. At that point in time, which was around mid-December 2025, the Council thought the overspend would have been slightly higher, so it submitted an application for £54 million. On 2 March 2026, in order to set a balanced budget for 2026/27, the Council had forecast that it needed £84 million. This was still only a forecast and was based on what the Council thought were its pressures going into 2026/27. The Council’s aspiration had to be to minimise the use of the £84 million as it was an in-principal agreement as Government would only give the Council what it actually needed. In 2024/25, the Council applied for £28 million of exceptional financial support. However, by the end of the year, the Council only needed £10 million. An in-principal agreement was very different to the final outcome when the accounts were closed at the end of the year.

·         In relation to the PFI (Private Financial Initiative) and the leases, when the Council set the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This report details the work undertaken by Internal Audit in the period 1 January to 15 February 2025 and focuses on progress on internal audit coverage relative to the approved internal audit plan, including the number of audit reports issued and finalised – work undertaken by the external provider (Forvis Mazars).

Mr Minesh Jani, Head of Audit and Risk Management, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to the evidence presented to the auditors over the completion of the mandatory training and the inspection records available, the auditors were looking for evidence to show that all those involved in the operation of leisure centres had the mandatory training to carry out their operations. It was found that there were “gaps” in how this was being done. The service had said they would implement some of the recommendations by the end of March 2026.

·         The “not applicable” statements on page 54 of the agenda papers were audits which were not audits where opinions were being given on the systems of control. The audits were more like fact finding interviews or regularity audits.

·         A manager was assigned to the Council from Mazars who acted as the Council’s liaison between all the auditors and the Head of Audit and Risk Management. 

·         The Council was behind on its audits. It was at 68% in the middle of February 2026. By the end of March 2026, most of the work would be done and finalisation of reports would happen in April 2026.

·         As the Council’s long-term partner in the delivery of audit functions, Mazars had been asked to attend the Committee and outline any significant issues. They were to highlight to the Committee the areas where they thought the Council should be focused. From an internal audit perspective, it was important that the Head of Audit and Mazars come to the Committee and provide insight and foresight into what was happening in the organisation and the sorts of areas of risks that the Council faced.

·         A management response time of one month for audit reports was the average in most cases. About 75% of the management responses was quicker. This year, there had been at least two or three audit reports where Mazars had reported their findings. The service disagreed with some of the suggestions, so some of the delay was a period where discussions were taking place between the service, Mazars and officers to try to understand the nature of the risk and whether the auditors or the service needed to redefine the criteria. They needed to understand the nature of the risk very clearly to be able to come up with a proper solution.

·         The reason for the adequate level of assurance for maintenance contracts was because the recommendations were all in priority 2. The high priority findings had been classed as medium risk. Had any of those been a priority 1, it would have been classed as limited assurance.

·         The value of the contract was around £40,000. Mazars had reported that there was no signed contract, but throughout the audit there was within the HPCS system terms and conditions agreed by both the contractor and the Council which constituted a contract and money was paid against that. There were issues around how it had been procured, but in terms of the sort  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving the annual internal audit plan as part of its Terms of Reference.

Mr Minesh Jani, Head of Audit and Risk Management, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         The audit dealing with complaints was on the plan was because a risk had been identified from talking to the services that a number of responses at stage two - where the Council had responded - was then taken to the ombudsman who would then find against the Council. At stage two, the Council had an opportunity to review its original response and be satisfied that the response met the threshold. If the ombudsman was finding against the Council, this meant that the stage two complaint did not work as well as it should have. So that was the purpose, but I'm happy to expand that into the entirety of the complaints process. At stage two, 90- 95% of responses should be agreed to by the ombudsmen, not overturned.

·         Page 73 of the agenda papers referred to the North London Waste Authority. One of the highest areas of risk for the Council was the potential levy that it could incur from the North London Waste Authority. The audit was trying to give assurance to that risk. It needed to be clarified if the Council had properly appraised itself of all the different facets of risk and what steps it was taking to try to manage the risk for including for other authorities in the in the neighbouring boroughs to mitigate the potential for the levy to rise.

The Audit Committee RESOLVED:

To approve the updated Annual Internal Audit Strategy and Plan for 2026/27 (Appendix A), the Internal Audit Charter (Appendix B) and note the Internal Audit Protocol (Appendix C) and the Assurance Risk Map (Appendix D).

Under its terms of reference, the Committee is also required to note the Council’s Corporate Risk Register and be satisfied appropriate mitigating actions are being completed in a timely manner.

Mr Minesh Jani, Head of Audit and Risk Management, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·         A number of local authorities who used the North London Waste Authority were potentially exposed to a financial risk of the levy being a lot higher than they thought. It could be millions. There was a governance framework set up to try to understand how the North London Waste Authority got to the position it had done and the potential exposure for Councils. The intention was to use the audit process to understand the detail and manage the risk. The Council was subject to potential increases in the levy year on year in line with inflation, but the particular risk highlighted was around the development of a new energy facility that was to replace the current facility which was out of date. 

·         In relation to the cost control over the housing delivery program, the left hand-side was the actual risk and on the right-hand side where it said “internal audit assurance” was trying to give assurance over the management of the risk. Due to the financial position of the Council, steps had been taken to try to manage spend better. There was a spend control panel with oversight of all spend across the Council. The audit was trying to support the work of the panel by taking a sample of payments that are made and ensuring or testing that actually it followed the right path before the spend was committed. The Council was trying to give assurance as to the effectiveness of the arrangements that the authority set up and whether there was any leakage in the way the process was being used by officers in the Council.

·         The Assurance Map of Corporate Risks had some blanks. When the annual report was brought to the committee, some of the blanks would be filled in addition to detailing if there was any assurance given from the previous couple of years where the audit work could inform the management of the risks.

·         A lot of Councils were finding it hard to fill Planning vacancies. For Haringey, it was quite an important area of operations because of the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. The service was trying a lot of things to try to fill the vacancies to meet their statutory duties. As at 30 November2025, the risk exposure was high and further mitigations would have to be found.     

·         In relation to building controls, the exposure to risk was high and on its way to becoming a serious issue.     

·         Councils were struggling to be able to attract staff that they wanted. These included accountants, lawyers, technicians on digital services and others. A number of people had moved into other sectors for financial reasons. Others had decided to go and work through an agency. The Council had a vacancy for a Claims Manager for two years.

·         The review of our governance and the identification of significant governance issues was one which the Council went through the entirety of the Council operations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To update the Committee and provide assurance on the progress to address the significant governance issues identified within the 2024/25 Annual Governance Statement (AGS).

The Deputy Head of Audit and Risk Assurrance, Ms Vanessa Bateman, introduced the report.

The meeting heard: 

• Each specific action got  reviewed as part of the sort of year end cycle and into the next year. The actions were not likely to be fully completed by the end of the year.
• In response to a query that it was difficult to validate progress if milestones were not present, the meeting heard that the AGS looked at a target dates.  Some had spanned more than a couple of years and various of the actions were large in scale.
• The review of the governance and the identification of significant governance issues was one where the Council  went through the entirety of the council operations and tried to assess the significance of each one. The Head of Audit and Risk Assurance would speak to the appropriate director of the service and try to get some empirical information on issues that may involve significant governance issues.

The Audit Committee RESOLVED:

To note the progres reported.

Any other business.

There was no other business.