Verity Healthcare Loses Procurement Challenge Against Cambridgeshire County Council

What was the procurement dispute?

In Verity Healthcare Limited v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 2830 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford considered two applications arising from a procurement conducted by Cambridgeshire County Council for a Homecare Framework.

The framework was intended to provide the principal mechanism through which the council would arrange regulated homecare services for adults across Cambridgeshire. Its estimated value was £928,080,000 including VAT, with a contract term of up to 10 years.

Verity Healthcare, a regulated health and social care provider, challenged a condition of participation requiring suppliers to hold a Care Quality Commission rating of Good or Outstanding. Verity was registered with the CQC but did not hold the required rating.

The company argued that the condition was disproportionate and therefore breached section 22 of the Procurement Act 2023, which permits conditions of participation only where they are a proportionate means of ensuring that suppliers have the legal, financial or technical capacity to perform the contract.

What was the CQC rating condition?

The council conducted the procurement through a competitive flexible procedure under section 20(2)(b) of the Procurement Act 2023. At the first stage, prospective bidders were required to complete a Procurement Specific Questionnaire (PSQ), which operated as a compliance gateway and shortlisting mechanism.

Question 3.7(e) required prospective bidders to confirm that their adult homecare service held a current CQC rating of Outstanding or Good. The assessment guidance stated that an application would be excluded if the provider did not meet that requirement.

The council’s evidence described preliminary market engagement beginning in 2024, followed by a series of notices and engagement events during 2025 and 2026. The CQC rating requirement had been identified as an anticipated condition in a Planned Procurement Notice published on Find a Tender on 25 March 2026.

The live Tender Notice was published on 15 July 2026. It directed suppliers to the In-Tend portal, where the tender documents and conditions of participation could be accessed.

The central issue before the court was not whether the CQC requirement was ultimately proportionate, but whether Verity had brought its challenge within the statutory deadline.

Why did the court find the claim out of time?

Section 106(2) of the Procurement Act 2023 requires a supplier to commence proceedings within 30 days beginning with the day on which it first knew, or ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the claim.

Verity issued its claim on 17 August 2026. It initially maintained that it had first become aware of the live procurement and the CQC condition on 19 July 2026. The council argued that the company had actual or constructive knowledge earlier and that the claim was therefore late.

The evidence showed that Verity accessed the In-Tend portal at 10.50pm on 18 July 2026 and registered an expression of interest one minute later. The court found that the procurement had been brought to the attention of Verity’s director on that date.

Mrs Justice Jefford considered it highly probable that, after logging into the portal, the director would have reviewed at least some of the tender documents and become aware of the CQC Rating Condition. In any event, she concluded that 18 July was the latest possible date by which Verity ought to have known of the circumstances giving rise to its claim.

The judge also accepted that the appropriate test for constructive knowledge under section 106 was that of the reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer, previously applied under the procurement regulations. Applying that test, she found that a diligent supplier should have been monitoring notices and alerts and should have reviewed the tender documents made available through the link in the published notice.

The change from the council’s previous procurement portal did not alter that conclusion. The court said a contracting authority was not required to notify incumbent suppliers individually of the portal it intended to use. Suppliers could receive notifications through Find a Tender or Google alerts and should take reasonable steps to keep themselves informed of opportunities.

1. 25 March 2026 Planned Procurement Notice published, identifying the CQC rating as an anticipated requirement.
2. 15 July 2026 Tender Notice published on Find a Tender, directing suppliers to the In-Tend portal.
3. 18 July 2026 Verity accessed the In-Tend portal and registered an expression of interest.
4. 21 July 2026 Verity sent the council a formal challenge to the participation condition.
5. 11 August 2026 The council rejected Verity’s challenge.
6. 17 August 2026 Verity issued its claim and application for interim relief.
7. 3 November 2026 High Court handed down judgment and entered summary judgment for the council.

The judge also criticised the shifting and incomplete explanations in the evidence about the date of knowledge. She considered that the evidence had sought to obfuscate the issue and said the court was entitled to draw an adverse inference. The court did not need to determine whether the litigation conduct independently justified striking out the claim.

Why was no extension of time granted?

Section 106(3) allows the court to extend the relevant time limit where there is a good reason for doing so. Verity relied on the short period of any extension required, the change in procurement portal, the time taken to identify the live tender, its correspondence with the council and the fact that the procurement had not yet reached contract award.

The judge first observed that the claim form itself did not include a claim for an extension and that no separate application had been made. She nevertheless considered the position in the alternative and concluded that an extension would have been refused.

Verity had set out its substantive challenge in a letter dated 21 July 2026 and asked the council to reconsider the condition. The council rejected that request on 11 August. The judge found that Verity had offered no adequate reason why proceedings could not have been prepared and issued within the statutory period. Waiting for the council’s response did not justify the delay, particularly because there was no reason to expect the council to change the procurement conditions.

The judge also rejected reliance on the fact that the procurement had not reached contract award. A challenge at any stage can disrupt the process and cause delay; the statutory time limit did not distinguish between claims brought before or after award.

Accordingly, none of the matters relied upon amounted to a good reason to extend time under section 106(3).

What did the court say about interim relief?

Verity had also sought interim relief to prevent the council from excluding it by applying the CQC condition or progressing the procurement in a way that prejudiced its participation. Since the claim was time-barred and summary judgment was entered for the council, the court did not need to determine the application.

For completeness, however, Mrs Justice Jefford said that she would not have granted the injunction in any event. She considered that the orders requiring the council to proceed while disapplying the CQC condition might not fall within the powers in section 102(1) of the Procurement Act 2023. In substance, the operative relief sought was suspension of the procurement.

Section 102(2) requires the court to consider the public interest, the interests of suppliers (including whether damages are an adequate remedy) and any other relevant matters. The judge held that these factors require a balancing exercise and that the statute does not give automatic priority to the public interest in lawful procurement.

On the facts, Verity’s substantive challenge was arguable but not particularly strong. The council had identified reasons for using a CQC rating as a threshold requirement, while delay could affect its timetable for moving to the new homecare framework and could lead to greater reliance on individual spot contracts. The judge considered damages an adequate remedy for Verity.

What does the judgment mean for suppliers?

The decision is a reminder that suppliers considering a procurement challenge must identify the relevant circumstances promptly and calculate the limitation period from when they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of them. The court’s approach places practical importance on active tender monitoring, reviewing published notices and following links to the underlying procurement documents.

Suppliers should not assume that a change in a contracting authority’s procurement platform will postpone the start of the statutory period. Nor should they assume that correspondence seeking reconsideration pauses or resets the limitation clock. Where a potential breach is identified, legal advice and preparation of any proceedings should take place within the applicable deadline.

For contracting authorities, the judgment addresses the operation of sections 22, 102 and 106 of the Procurement Act 2023. However, because the claim was disposed of on limitation grounds, the decision should not be treated as a final ruling that a Good or Outstanding CQC rating is necessarily a proportionate condition of participation in every homecare procurement.