Campaigners have criticised the way that the council awarded a £19 million contract to provide temporary housing for homeless people in Brighton and Hove.
But the Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey defended the move, saying that it was urgent because of increasing need and soaring costs.
One critic, Charles Harrison, from the Brighton and Hove Housing Coalition, questioned the wisdom of awarding a six-year contract to a company incorporated less than three years ago – in May 2023.
Mr Harrison said that Brighton and Hove City Council had entered into a rushed contract with Base One and he raised concern’s about the company’s lack of assets.
The council published a “transparency notice” on its website on Friday 2 January setting out basic details of the £3 million-a-year deal for Base One to provide 209 homes, with 24-hour support.
At a meeting of the full council on Thursday (29 January) Mr Harrison said that the coalition was aware of the increased demand facing the council – and the high cost of booking nightly emergency and temporary housing from private providers.
He asked why such a large contract had been so rushed and why no alternative options had been explored and no proper public scrutiny had taken place at a council meeting.
Mr Harrison said that the company had assets of £55,000 making it a relatively small company to have an £18.8 million contract over six years.
He also said that it did not have a proven track record of delivering services although it was paid more than £840,000 by the council in the first eight months of the current financial year.
He said: “A lot can happen is six years. I haven’t seen any reference to risk analysis, so whether the assumptions may change in that six-year period.
“Has there been any kind of risk register formed? Are there any plans for risk workshops to develop mitigation strategies?”
Councillor Sankey said that the cost of providing temporary housing was “significant” and had grown in recent years.
The council had allocated £28 million for temporary housing in the 2025-26 budget and was currently forecast to overspend that sum by £4 million.
She said that the council has gone from booking 114 units of temporary housing a night in 2022 to 520 by November last year.
This had led to the council facing much higher costs compared with longer-term temporary housing.
More than 2,000 households currently relied on temporary housing in Brighton and Hove, the council was told.
Councillor Sankey said: “This council therefore took an urgent decision to stabilise temporary accommodation provision and address a significant in-year overspend for nightly paid placements.
“This was necessary to help us address an anticipated in-year overspend while maintaining the continuity of our service for Brighton and Hove residents experiencing homelessness.”
Councillor Sankey said that she heard Mr Harrison’s concerns and, ideally, the decision would have been made by the council’s cabinet, with debate and public questions.
She said that cost pressures linked to temporary housing were well known and the council had taken radical steps to reduce those costs.
Another member of the Brighton and Hove Housing Coalition, Daniel Harris, was supporting a group of mothers who wanted to address the council’s cabinet meeting on Thursday 22 January, all of whom are living long term in temporary housing with their autistic children.
He was angry to learn that the deadline for seeking to do so was Monday 12 January, two days before the agenda was published.
Mr Harris said: “These are all Brighton families and all have protected characteristics and their children are most certainly adversely impacted by decisions not taken to cabinet.
“I consider this to be indirect discrimination and request you level the playing field.”
Mother-of-four Keira Beck was due to lead the deputation of mothers. She said that the council had created a £30 million “wealth siphon” to private landlords.
The Housing Coalition called for an independent audit into the rushed and secret elements of the £18.8 million direct award to Base One.
It also called for families with children who have an education, health and care plan (EHCP) or disability to be given the highest priority.
Shannon Bourne said that she slept on a box-room floor and had been trapped in limbo in temporary housing for 14 years.
She criticised the early deadline for public involvement, saying: “The council effectively silenced me before I could even see what was on the agenda. This is a breach of procedural fairness.
“If the council can process written questions up until the 16th, there is no objective justification for forcing disabled parents to submit complex oral deputations 10 days before the meeting.”
The Base One contract was confirmed without debate by the full council.
If you check the two company directors of Base One Holdings Ltd on Companies House:
Karl Paul Edwards has been a Director in 13 companies, all dissolved and resigned from except for 5, where he is still listed as being an active Director. Sophie Law-Smith has been a Director in 10 companies, all resigned from or dissolved except for 5, where she is still listed as being an active Director. No apparent website for Base One Holdings Ltd ether. What could possibly go wrong with awarding a company incorporated 8 May 2023, with Micro company accounts listing assets of £9,018, and with no proven track record in homeless housing provision, a £19m contract for the supply of homeless accommodation and how can any contract be so emergency that it seemingly overlooks required fiduciary procedures and established providers?
Ms Sankey needs to resign if she believes this is acceptable. Along with the 151 Officer who presumably signed it off.
You’re aware of the budgetary overspend that needs to be addressed which is primarily driven by spot-purchasing temporary accommodation? It was detailed in the article.
I can see the financial argument, especially if you take an average of spot purchasing of £125 per night. Just on this contract, there’s a potential saving of about £6.5m. That saving may well be worth it, even if the company is young, and the scaling of foundational skills are transferable to larger projects.
Directly awarded contracts for big ticket items cannot by given willy nilly to start ups in the hope they might scale up and deliver as they go along! How did the Council even know of their existence and what established providers did they consider before deciding that the unknown one was the best use of £19m of public money? What properties do they use and how many homeless have they accommodated so far in their two and a half year company history?
Even emergency awards require the following
Key Criteria for Supplier Screening:
Capacity and Capability: Suppliers must demonstrate the immediate capacity to deliver the required goods, services, or works.
Suitability Assessment: While formal, long-term tender processes are skipped, authorities must still ensure the supplier is fit to perform the contract and, where possible, conduct rapid due diligence on their financial and technical ability.
Suppliers must be screened against mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds (e.g., fraud, bribery, insolvency).
Conflict of Interest: Rigorous identification and management of conflicts of interest are essential to ensure fairness and transparency.
Value for Money & Risk: Although urgent, the procurement should, where possible, achieve value for money and manage the risks of high pricing (e.g., using capped prices or, in some cases, negotiating with multiple suppliers for a fast turnaround).
Strict Necessity: The scope of the contract must be limited strictly to what is needed to address the immediate emergency.
All sounds a bit ‘tasty’ !
I wonder how many companies you have run Tracy?
So no one who hasn’t run a company gets to comment then?