← More from Ruislip Residents' Association
Finally, we must ask whether the administration is listening to its own auditors. Last summer, Ernst & Young (EY) issued a rare Section 24 Recommendation, warning of “systemic weaknesses” in financial governance and “unreliable forecasts.”
Crucially, this warning came after the Council had already launched its £1.8 million Finance Modernisation Programme and Governance Review in April. Yet when the warning was formally considered, the Council’s response was not to pause, reset, or acknowledge failure, but effectively to continue as before. In the months since, we have seen late budgets, debt write-offs agreed in private, and savings plans that exist on paper but not in reality. The question is unavoidable: is the Council actually taking heed?
At the July Audit Committee, a councillor stated that the £1.8 million Finance Modernisation Programme was, in effect, correcting inaccurate accounts and reports that had been presented to Councillors and residents for more than a decade. The then-Chief Finance Officer did not dispute this characterisation. Instead, he described a series of historic balance-sheet failures – including a “negative reserve” and mis-calculated debt provisions – that required a £14.1 million correction. His response did not deny that residents had been given inaccurate financial information; it explained how it had happened.
It is also notable that, at the same time that our external auditors were delivering their warning, the Council’s own Internal Audit had provided “nil assurance” over key aspects of financial governance. In audit terms, this is the lowest possible rating and means the Council’s own auditing staff could not confirm that basic financial controls were working or could be relied upon. The external warning did not arrive in isolation; it echoed concerns the Council had already been formally told about.
When the Section 24 warning was subsequently presented to Full Council in September, there was again no denial of systemic weaknesses or unreliable forecasts. There was only reassurance that work was “ongoing.”
Set alongside a Section 24 warning, unreliable forecasts, historic accounting errors, a £14.1m correction and a £150m bailout request, this stops being background noise and becomes a warning light the Council drove past.
Taken together, these admissions raise a serious concern: if auditors warn of systemic failure, councillors acknowledge that residents were given inaccurate figures for years, and senior officers respond by explaining the mechanics rather than challenging the premise, what assurance do residents have that the underlying problems have been fixed – rather than merely re-labelled?
As we prepare these articles for publication, more evidence is published. The Council’s own internal watchdogs are now sounding the same alarm. The February 2026 Audit papers show that Internal Audit has issued a Nil Assurance rating – the lowest possible – for Green Spaces, citing failures in budget setting and the delivery of savings programmes.
The Council’s Corporate Risk Register also continues to rate the “Ability to Deliver a Balanced Budget” as a Red Risk (A1), with Audit Committee papers noting that the potential need for Exceptional Financial Support could approach £80 million. The total already applied for across three years is already £150m, as we heard at the full Council meeting last month.
Read alongside a Section 24 warning for systemic weaknesses and unreliable forecasts, these findings matter. They show that the external auditors’ concerns were not isolated, historic, or technical. They were subsequently reflected in the Council’s own internal audit conclusions and its highest-rated corporate financial risks. The warning light the auditors identified is now also illuminated on the Council’s own dashboard.
Read more of our February 2026 series
Join our newsletter mailing list
budget26