The council at the centre of the Baby P scandal still presides over a system that leaves children at serious risk of harm, a report has found.

Six months after the scale of the incompetence that contributed to the 17-month-old’s death came to light, Haringey has made only “limited progress” in tackling areas of serious weakness.

Decision-making and assessments of children at risk were found to still be “poor” in many cases.

The report was compiled by Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, which were asked by the Government to send inspectors back in six months after they found grave problems in the social services department.

But it has concluded that little has changed in the period, despite new leadership.

“Inspectors and the council identified serious concerns about the safety of some children named in social care files and the council and its partners accept that currently not all children are adequately safeguarded,” it concluded.

Social workers’ caseloads remain too high and their decisions in individual child protection cases continue to be “inconsistent and insufficiently robust”, the report found.

Baby Peter died of multiple injuries in August 2007. His mother pleaded guilty to causing or allowing his death. Her boyfriend and a lodger were found guilty of the same charge.

Baby Peter was on the at-risk register, subject to constant checks and monitoring and had been seen on 60 separate occasions by the time he died.

After the trial and an inquiry, Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, removed Sharon Shoesmith from her post as director of children’s services.

Recording and tracking of cases of vulnerable children was judged to still be weak. One particular weakness was in accident and emergency, where the absence of a hospital-based social worker due to illness or other engagements led to the system grinding to a halt.

Decision-making over which children were at most risk was criticised. Inspectors looked at a sample of records and found that in 14 per cent of cases judged low priority and unallocated, there were serious safeguarding issues, with the children facing immediate risks.