The claimant challenged the means of implementation of the new scheme of tax-free childcare support, saying that the 2006 Regulations should have been applied before the allocation of the administration of the new scheme had been given to the National Savngs and Investments.
Held: The MoU between HMRC and NSandI is not a ‘public services contract’ within the 2006 Regulations. Intra-government arrangements are not about competition with the private sector but about government organising itself in an efficient manner to ensure that public money is well spent. A memorandum of understanding which specifies in detail the services to be provided when one department procures the services of another department is not a contract but sets out what services those who are accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public money can expect to receive in return for the charges levied on them by the provider of the services and what those charges are.
Even if NSandI and HMRC could contract with each other, in the light of paragraph 3.1 of the MoU, specifying that the MoU is not legally binding on the parties and does not contain representations on which either party may rely, they have not done so.
Andrews DBE J
[2015] EWHC 90 (QB)
Bailii
Public Services Regulations 2006, Directive EU No. 2004/38
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Treasury and Others QBD 27-Oct-2014
Challenge to change from Employer Supported Childcare scheme to Tax Free Childcare, and in particular that it would be administered by ational Savings and Investments, saying that as an outside body, that decision should have been dealt with under . .
Cited – Sintesi SpA v Autorita per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici ECJ 7-Oct-2004
Approximation Of Laws – Directive 93/37/EEC – Public works contracts – Award of contracts – Right of the contracting authority to choose between the criterion of the lower price and that of the more economically advantageous tender . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd v HM Treasury and Others CA 31-Mar-2015
The claimant appealed against refusal of its challenge to the manner of implementation by the respondent of a government policy for Tax-Free Child Care. . .
At first instance (2) – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd and Another v HM Treasury and Others SC 1-Jul-2015
Challenge to the decision by HM Treasury to use National Savings and Investments to deliver the Government policy of Tax-free Childcare. The claimants said that the 2006 Regulations imposed an obligation to put such contracts out to tender.
Administrative, European
Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541727