Decision details

The Leader approves

1.     Appendices A and B are not for publication on the basis that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

2.     A direct award to the preferred provider for the provision of community equipment services from 15^th September 2025 for one year with the option to extend by one year and a further one year.

1.     Local authorities have a statutory duty under various legislation including the Care Act 2014, and the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements for the provision of disability aids and “community equipment”, to meet the assessed eligible needs of individuals who are resident in their area.

2.     The provision of community equipment supports residents to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible and is both a statutory requirement and important in delivering key strategic system priorities to support hospital discharge and prevention.

3.     The recommendations within this paper seek to sustain the delivery of this service, ensuring continuity of provision whilst a new service is mobilised.

1.     The Council is required to secure alternative provision. Not doing so, would result in failure to deliver statutory services.

2.     Officers considered delivering provision as an in-house service, however there are significant challenges in relation to this. Both at Local, regional and pan-London level, Council’s do not have the expertise or capacity to mobilise a service of this scale. It is highly complex and would pose a significant risk to the safety of residents and patients in the delivery of these statutory services. The provider market is limited, posing significant risk to the supply chain becoming swamped by individual authorities and ICB’s purchasing directly. Failure to deliver these services poses a significant risk to the disruption of safe and effective hospital discharges. Delays in discharges will likely result in delays in admissions and treatment. This option was therefore considered not viable within the timeframe for Hammersmith & Fulham.

3.     Officers explored the most appropriate procurement options on a pan-London, regional and local basis to secure the continuity of provision. The provider market is significantly underdeveloped. There are only three main providers nationally, with only two of them operating in London. The main alternative provider in London indicated they did not have sufficient capacity to meet H&F’s requirements, only being able to fulfil a small proportion of the London footprint based on geographical locations.

4.     H&F will be part of an 8-borough partnership under the new arrangements. The London Borough of Camden will be the host borough for the partnership and manage the governance, contract monitoring, finance and IT on behalf of all the boroughs. A financial contribution to Camden to provide services is set out in appendix B. The agreement, roles, responsibilities and terms of the partnership are set out in a Deed agreed by all 8 boroughs.

5.     The IT system used by the insolvent provider was offered to the new provider to enable transition. However, the costs of the system were prohibitive, and the London Borough of Harrow have procured an IT system to facilitate the management of the new equipment service. These costs are approximately 50% less than the insolvent provider offer, they will be split equally across the 8 boroughs and are set out in appendix B.