Verity Healthcare v Cambridgeshire County Council: £928m homecare procurement challenge fails as out of time

The Technology and Construction Court has entered summary judgement for a local authority against a provider challenging a requirement in a £928m homecare framework, holding that the claim missed the 30 day limit in section 106(2) of the Procurement Act 2023. In Verity Healthcare Ltd v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 2830 (TCC), Jefford J also explained how she would have approached interim relief under section 102.

Verity challenged a condition of participation requiring bidders to hold a Care Quality Commission rating of "Good" or above, arguing it was disproportionate under section 22. The tender notice was published on 15 July 2026, directing bidders to the council's portal for the documents. Verity issued its claim and an interim relief application on 17 August.

Verity said it first knew of the procurement and the condition on 19 July, having missed the council's move to a new portal. Its evidence shifted repeatedly. After the council produced portal records, Verity accepted a log-in and expression of interest late on 18 July. It later said an assistant had learned of the tender that day and that its director read the relevant email only on 19 July. Copies of the alert email differed in date and subject line.

The judge held that Verity had actual knowledge by 18 July at the latest. It was highly probable that, having logged in, its director saw the condition, and she drew an adverse inference from the quality of the evidence. In the alternative, she applied the reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer test from Siemens Mobility v HS2, seeing no reason to abandon it under the 2023 Act. On that basis Verity ought to have known on 15 July.

An authority need not tell suppliers, even incumbents, which portal it will use, and alerts could be set up through Find a Tender or search engines. Verity gave no evidence of how it monitored opportunities. Relying on a consultancy's weekly alert meant it could expect to learn of notices days late, with no reason to think that time would not count. Earlier market engagement had also signalled the rating condition, albeit provisionally. Any grace period would run from publication, applying Oracle Security Services v Barts Health NHS Trust, so the claim would still be late. She left open whether section 106(2) is stricter than its predecessor.

No application for an extension under section 106(3) had been made, so the issue did not arise. Had it done so, she would have refused it under the SRCL v NHS Commissioning Board principles. Verity had set out its complaint by 21 July and could have issued once the council rejected it on 11 August, in time even from 15 July. Nor could the merits of the proportionality point overcome a limitation defence.

The judge expressed considerable sympathy with the council's criticisms of Verity's conduct, including the "drip feed" of statements, but did not decide whether they justified strike out under CPR 3.4(2).

On interim relief, she rejected the argument that section 102 gives the public interest in lawful procurement precedence. The provision requires a balancing exercise in which weight is case specific. She agreed with much of Parkingeye v Velindre University NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1019 (TCC), but doubted that its formulation, requiring a very persuasive countervailing interest to lift suspension, fits the statute. She would have refused relief, noting that damages were adequate and delay would affect a framework due by April 2027.

Richard Clayton KC appeared for Verity, instructed by Farani Taylor Solicitors. Stephen Kosmin appeared for the council, instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP.