Add Listing

Westminster Council overpaid staff a total of £480,000 over five years, according to data released through Freedom of Information requests by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS). The council stated that £99,000 of this amount remains outstanding, with the remainder successfully recovered.

The overpayments resulted primarily from payroll cut-off timings when employees left the organisation after payments had already been processed. A council spokesperson said the authority “makes a considerable effort to recover any overpayment which is not returned straight away.”

Payroll operations for Westminster City Council are managed by an outsourced provider. The council said this provider identifies and calculates any overpayments, issues invoices and accompanying letters to affected individuals, and follows up to three times if repayment is not made. Should these efforts fail, the case is transferred to a debt recovery agency for further action.

A council representative described such incidents as routine within large organisations. “Occasional overpayment is almost always due to staff leaving, changing role, or working hours mid-month and is common in large organisations with monthly payroll,” the spokesperson said. “The vast majority of this money is recouped immediately and the council makes a considerable effort to recover any overpayment which is not returned straight away.”

Departmental data released to the LDRS showed that the housing and commercial partnership division recorded the largest total of overpayments, at £91,000. Children’s services followed with £86,000, while regeneration, economy and planning reported £76,517.

The figures indicate that while errors are infrequent, the financial scale of mispayments can be significant in complex payroll systems where staff changes occur mid-cycle. The council noted that recovery mechanisms are in place and that most sums are reclaimed promptly.

The disclosure that Westminster Council overpaid staff highlights the administrative challenges of managing payroll across multiple departments and employment types. The council continues to monitor its payroll processes to reduce the likelihood of future discrepancies.

The Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels have reopened following a significant fire at an industrial unit on Tunnel Avenue in Greenwich, south-east London. The incident, which began on Tuesday evening, saw around 70 firefighters tackle flames that sent thick smoke drifting across nearby roads, severely affecting visibility for drivers and causing extensive disruption across the area.

Fire crews were called to the scene at approximately 18:15 GMT. Using two 100ft (32m) turntable ladders as water towers, firefighters worked to extinguish the blaze from above. The London Fire Brigade confirmed that the flames were brought under control overnight, though some roads remain closed while crews continue to monitor the site on Wednesday morning.

Two people were advised to leave a neighbouring property as a precaution. Fortunately, there were no reports of injuries. Despite the reopening of the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels overnight, several connecting routes — including Tunnel Avenue, Blackwall Lane, and the Blackwall Lane slip road leading to the northbound Blackwall Tunnel — remain shut as safety assessments continue.

The fire’s cause has not yet been determined, and investigations are under way. For now, Transport for London (TfL) has urged motorists to plan ahead and expect residual delays on approaches to both tunnels.

The Blackwall Tunnel, one of the capital’s key river crossings, plays a crucial role in linking the London Borough of Tower Hamlets with the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Originally opened in 1897 by the Prince of Wales, it began as a single bore designed to support London’s growing trade and transport needs. As traffic volumes increased, a second bore was added in 1967 to ease congestion, dividing traffic between northbound and southbound routes.

Before the construction of the Silvertown Tunnel, the Blackwall crossing served as the easternmost free fixed road link across the River Thames. The route connected the A12 in the north to the A2 in the south and was an essential artery for commuters, logistics, and travellers moving between Kent, south-east London, and central London.

The Silvertown Tunnel, opened on 7 April 2025, was designed to ease chronic congestion through the A102 Blackwall Tunnel and improve resilience in the area’s road network. Built beneath the River Thames between west Silvertown and the Greenwich Peninsula, the 1.4 km (0.87-mile) twin-bore tunnel is part of the A1026 and incorporates dedicated lanes for buses, coaches, taxis, and heavy goods vehicles.

Operated under a toll system by TfL and delivered by the Riverlinx consortium, both the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels now apply charges between 06:00 and 22:00, with free overnight travel. Although cyclists and pedestrians are not permitted to use the tunnels, a dedicated shuttle bus service ensures continued accessibility for those on two wheels, while all buses using the tunnels are now zero-emission vehicles.

The reopening of the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels marks a swift recovery from what could have been a prolonged closure. With firefighters maintaining a presence on-site and road engineers assessing the remaining damage, full access to surrounding routes is expected to resume once safety is confirmed.

As one of London’s busiest river crossings, the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels remain vital to keeping the capital moving — a reminder of how integral this infrastructure is to daily travel and trade in the city’s east.

A court case has ruled in favour of Islington Council’s attempt to vaccinate a child in care, after their mother tried to block routine immunisations.

The High Court decided that the eight-month-old girl should be vaccinated despite her mother’s objections, concluding that withholding the jabs would leave her at risk of serious childhood diseases.

The case centred on an infant known as P, who has been under the north London council’s guardianship since February following concerns that her mother, identified only as Ms S, could not meet her or her older siblings’ basic care needs. The court heard that while in the council’s care, P was due to receive her regular NHS vaccinations, which the mother refused to consent to.

Ms S argued that she believed there was a link between vaccines and autism, a claim which scientific research has repeatedly found to be false. She also said she feared the effects of “all those chemicals” on her daughter, describing the baby as “too tiny to be pumped with vaccinations.” Despite assurances and evidence presented in court, she insisted it should remain her choice to delay or refuse the jabs.

Mr Justice McDonald, presiding over the High Court, disagreed. In his ruling, he said that not vaccinating the child would expose her to the risk of infection “at a very young age when she remains vulnerable.” The judge found that the council’s decision to proceed with routine immunisations was in the child’s best interests and therefore lawful.

The decision followed several months of legal and welfare proceedings concerning the infant’s living arrangements. In July, Islington Council proposed that the baby could live with her mother at the family home under supervision while longer-term care decisions were made. During this period, Ms S continued to refuse permission for her daughter to be vaccinated. Concerned for the child’s welfare, the council went ahead with arranging the appointment in line with medical advice, prompting the mother to take the matter to the High Court.

The Islington Council vaccination court case heard that Ms S maintained her objections were based on online information she had seen claiming that thousands of children had died from preventable diseases, which she viewed as a low risk compared to the overall child population.

Ms S also said she believed ethnic minority children were more adversely affected by vaccines, though no scientific evidence supports this view.

According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Mr Justice McDonald “gently pressed” the mother during the hearing, explaining that there were no scientific studies linking vaccinations to autism or ADHD. Despite this, Ms S continued to insist that she might allow her child to receive the jabs only when she was older.

Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities in England have the power to authorise medical treatment, including vaccinations, for children who are in their care, even if parents object.

While there is currently no law in the UK that makes vaccination compulsory, the NHS strongly advises parents to follow its recommended immunisation schedule. Babies are typically given their first vaccines at eight weeks of age to protect them against diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough.

The court’s ruling means Islington Council is now permitted to proceed with the routine immunisations for the child while she remains under its guardianship. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the welfare of the child takes precedence in public care decisions, particularly where medical treatment is considered essential to protect against preventable illness.

The Islington Council vaccination court case represents a victory for informed scientific understanding over unfounded independent ‘research’.

Although vaccination remains voluntary across the UK, courts have repeatedly upheld the position that local authorities can act in the best interests of a child’s health when parents decline evidence-based medical care.

For Islington Council, the decision provides legal clarity on how such cases should be handled when parents object to routine treatment.

For public health professionals, it serves as a reminder of the continuing challenge of addressing vaccine misinformation and ensuring that vulnerable children receive timely protection against preventable diseases.