A charity’s legal challenge over a London council’s procurement of residential care services will continue following a High Court ruling.
In late 2023, Apasen bid to Tower Hamlets council to provide services in two areas of the London borough.
However, the charity then received anonymous whistleblowing allegations of corruption and financial impropriety, which it shared with the local authority.
None of the allegations were upheld in an investigation commissioned by Apasen but a separate review by PwC, instructed by the council, alleged overpayment to the charity.
The council then awarded one of the two contracts the charity had bid for but with a condition based on the outcome of its audit.
Following challenges to the contract awards by Apasen and other suppliers, the council scrapped the original procurement round.
Then in March last year, the council published a transparency notice, detailing its decision to award seven interim contracts directly, justified by “urgency”, two of which went to Apasen.
It also published what it intended to be a contract award notice but which did not mention the urgency justification.
Then in June last year, the council decided it would not directly award any contracts to Apasen, based on the outcome of its audit, while its other awards to four other suppliers proceeded.
Apasen asked the council to disclose documents relevant to the audit including the PwC reports, which it did after the charity commenced judicial review proceedings.
After seeing the documents, Apasen maintained that the PwC report provided no proper basis for the council’s decision to revoke its contract awards to the charity.
It challenged the council’s urgency justification, the accuracy of its contract award notice and argued that its other interim contracts should be set aside.
Tower Hamlets Council applied to strike out the parts of Apasen’s claim seeking to set aside the other contracts but this was rejected by a deputy High Court judge last Friday.
“The question of what circumstances would justify holding that a contract award notice is not accurate is highly arguable and not decided as yet by authority,” the judgment reads.
