The Contract Register: Kingston’s Supplier Scorecard and the Social Value Nobody Verifies
Photo: UK council contract documents procurement office paperwork, via c8.alamy.com
Kingston Council does much of its work through other organisations. Schools are repaired, parks maintained, temporary accommodation secured and IT systems supported by companies whose names rarely feature in a council press release. The contract register is therefore not a technical appendix to the budget. It is a map of how public money leaves the town hall.
Kingston Press has analysed the council’s published contract register, its 2026 procurement pipeline and Freedom of Information responses returned between September and October 2026. The picture is not one of wrongdoing. It is one of patchy disclosure. The council can tell residents what it spends. It struggles to show what it gets back beyond the service itself — particularly when suppliers promise apprenticeships, local jobs or carbon savings.
What the 2026 contract data shows
The register lists more than 300 live contracts above the council’s publication threshold. The largest areas of spend are adults’ and children’s social care, construction and maintenance, waste and environment, and temporary accommodation. A small number of suppliers account for a large share of the total value.
The geographic question is harder to answer than it should be. Kingston Council does not publish a single measure of how much contract value goes to firms with a Kingston upon Thames base. Our analysis used registered office postcodes and, where available, the location of the delivery depot or branch. On that basis, roughly one pound in five of published contract value went to a supplier with a KT postcode. That figure is imperfect: a national firm can have a Kingston office and still route profits and management elsewhere. A local firm can trade from Chessington while employing people across South London.
The scorecard: five names to watch
The table below is a readable summary, not a ranking of virtue. It draws on the contract register and FOI responses. No supplier named here is accused of any impropriety. The question is whether the council can evidence the promises made at tender stage.
| Supplier | Main contract area | 2026 value band | Local footprint | Social value pledge | Verification published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latchmere Construction | School and leisure repairs | £5m–£10m | KT registered office; parent company in Surrey | 12 apprenticeships | No |
| GreenSpace Environmental | Parks and grounds maintenance | £2m–£5m | Depot in Tolworth | Local hiring target | Partly |
| South West Audit Services | Assurance and reviews | £1m–£2m | No KT office | Training bursary | No |
| Chessington Care Partnership | Adults’ support services | £5m–£10m | Chessington base | Workforce retention plan | Yes |
| Thames Facilities Group | Corporate buildings | £1m–£2m | National provider | Carbon reduction plan | No |
The pattern is consistent. Where the service is people-facing and locally rooted, evidence is easier to find. Where the contract is corporate or construction-related, the social value trail often stops at the tender document.
FOI findings: what the council could not tell us
Three responses stand out. First, the council confirmed that it does not hold a single central register linking each contract to its social value commitments. Responsibility sits with service departments. Second, it could not provide a council-wide figure for social value clawback — the money recovered when a supplier misses an agreed target. Third, it said that contract-level social value reporting is not routinely published, though some departments include it in annual service reports.
That does not mean nothing happens. Officers do monitor contracts. Suppliers do deliver training and hiring in some cases. But a resident cannot easily check. A scrutiny councillor cannot easily compare. The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires councils to consider social value when procuring services. It does not create a simple public scoreboard. Kingston could choose to build one.
Questions residents can put to scrutiny councillors
- How much of the 2026 contract value went to firms with a Kingston upon Thames registered office, and how is that measured?
- Which contracts include social value commitments, and where are those commitments published?
- How many social value targets were missed in 2025–26, and what was recovered?
- Does the council publish a supplier scorecard, or does it rely on departmental spreadsheets?
- What proportion of contracts were awarded through frameworks rather than open competition?
- How many local firms bid for council work, and how many won?
- Who signs off social value evidence, and is that sign-off audited?
- Will the council publish contract-level social value data alongside the 2027 budget papers?
Why this matters for the 2026 budget
Procurement is a budget lever as well as an administrative process. Every percentage point of contract value that can be shifted towards preventative services, local employment or energy efficiency is money that does not have to be found elsewhere. But the shift only works if the council can evidence it.
The register is a start. It tells residents who wins. It does not yet tell them whether Kingston got what it paid for beyond the headline service. That is the gap scrutiny councillors should close — and residents should ask them to.
