CALL TO ACTION:
We are assembling a new alliance of innovators, public sector pioneers, and ethical private companies to fundamentally reshape the landscape of public procurement and service delivery. For too long, the system has rewarded incumbent rent-seekers and excluded true innovators through flawed contracts and anti-competitive practices. We are moving beyond just identifying the problem. Armed with unique knowledge assets on structuring fair and efficient public-private collaborations, we are developing Unsolicited Proposals that offer genuine solutions. If you are a company with a superior technology or service that has been shut out of the market, a public body seeking a better way to deliver value for taxpayers, or an expert in designing transparent and collaborative contracts, we invite you to join our project. This is an opportunity to move beyond litigation and become a key partner in building the next generation of public interest contracts. Let us work together to create the fair, competitive, and innovative system that the current one has failed to deliver.
From the Office for National Statistics’ Public Sector Classification Guide, I extracted foundational evidence that is critical for our legal case. This document is far more than a simple list; it is a detailed record of the official economic status of hundreds of UK bodies, providing the specific rationale for why an entity is classified as part of the public or private sector. The key extraction was not just individual names, but the underlying principles and precedents for classification. Specifically, I identified the reclassification of Network Rail to the central government sector due to the government guaranteeing its debt. I also noted the creation of the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies as central government bodies before their sale to the private sector, and the classification of numerous housing associations as public corporations because of the level of government control over their assets and management. The reason for extracting these specific examples is that they provide irrefutable, official evidence that the line between a “private” operator and a public body is often an accounting distinction rather than an operational reality. This allows us to argue that the government is ultimately responsible for the torts and contractual failures of these quasi-private entities, as it retains the critical levers of control and bears the ultimate financial risk. This is the cornerstone for establishing joint liability.
From the paper on rent-seeking and lobbying, I extracted the core theoretical framework to define the negative behavior of our targets. The crucial concept I drew out is the definition of rent-seeking as the wasteful use of resources to secure a larger share of existing wealth—through lobbying for subsidies, favorable regulations, or barriers to entry—rather than creating new economic value. I specifically noted the three types of economic harm it causes: the diversion of resources to lobbying, the inefficient allocation of capital due to the resulting policies, and the potential for economic stagnation. The real-world example of car dealers lobbying to block Tesla’s direct-to-consumer model is a perfect, modern analogy for our case. I extracted this information because it provides the economic and moral vocabulary for our campaign. It allows us to label the actions of the perpetrators not merely as anti-competitive, but as a form of economically destructive “rent-seeking” that actively harms consumers, taxpayers, and innovation for their own private gain. This narrative is essential for winning public and political support.
From the academic paper on intellectual property and open innovation, I extracted a sophisticated model for our proposed solutions. The key takeaway is the conflict between the “closed innovation” paradigm, which is necessary to secure a patent, and the “open innovation” paradigm, which is vital for rapid, collaborative progress. I focused on the paper’s central argument that all successful open innovation is actively “managed,” primarily through private ordering tools like contracts, which govern information exchange and IP ownership. Furthermore, I extracted the specific policy proposal for an “own invention defence” in patent law, which would protect joint collaborators. The value of this information lies in its direct application to our Unsolicited Proposals. It gives us the intellectual architecture to design a collaborative model—our “Unsolicited Alliance that is not a cartel”—which uses advanced contractual governance to manage IP and foster innovation without breaching competition law. It demonstrates that we have not only identified problems but have also developed credible, nuanced solutions.
Finally, from the Register of All-Party Parliamentary Groups, I extracted a practical roadmap for political engagement. I identified several APPGs whose work is directly relevant to our causes of action, such as the groups for Access to Justice, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and, most notably, the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax. I extracted not just their titles, but their specific purposes, the names of their chairing officers, and, crucially, the details of the external organizations that provide them with secretariat services and funding, like the Legal Aid Practitioners Group or the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The reason for extracting this granular detail is that it provides us with direct channels of influence. We can now approach these secretariats to offer our research as evidence for their inquiries, brief their members, and participate in their meetings. This allows us to inject our findings directly into the parliamentary policy-making process, turning our case from a private dispute into a matter of public and political concern.
UK TENDERS
There are several active opportunities related to the environmental torts we have uncovered, particularly concerning water pollution. On Contracts Finder, a supply chain notice has been published by EQUANS, a major facilities management company that services public sector contracts, including for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. They are seeking suppliers for water treatment services across their estate. The initial closing date for the preliminary questionnaire is very soon, on June 27, 2025. This tender directly relates to our cause of action against water company failures. Our USP could be framed around providing advanced, reliable water treatment and monitoring solutions that go beyond the minimum compliance levels that have clearly proven inadequate, thereby offering the public sector a way to ensure the water quality on its properties is not compromised by the failures of statutory water undertakers.
For a more strategic, long-term approach, there are Dynamic Purchasing Systems, or DPS, that we can join at any time. The London Borough of Waltham Forest, for example, runs a DPS for Specialist Professional Services which has a specific category for “Environmental and Waste” consultancy. By enrolling in this DPS, we position ourselves to be invited to bid on a range of projects aimed at solving environmental problems for the council. This aligns perfectly with our work on holding polluters accountable, as we can offer consultancy services to public bodies on how to build resilience, monitor environmental quality independently, and design contracts with private partners that have more stringent, enforceable environmental standards.
In the transport sector, we can address the service failures and passenger rights issues we have identified. While many large rail franchise contracts are long-term, there are significant infrastructure and service-related tenders. Network Rail has a major preliminary market engagement notice on Find a Tender for its “Rail Infrastructure Monitoring Service Replacement,” a contract valued at over one billion pounds. The deadline for responding to the initial market engagement questionnaire is today, June 16, 2025, so immediate action is required to engage. Our USP would be to propose monitoring solutions that focus not just on physical track integrity but also on data-driven insights into service quality, crowding, and passenger experience, directly tackling the issues of poor service that form the basis of our claims against operators. This allows us to offer a solution that serves both the infrastructure manager’s needs and the public interest in better services.
To address the wider issues of governance, maladministration, and anti-competitive behaviour, we should look to the professional services frameworks run by the Crown Commercial Service (CCS). A crucial upcoming opportunity is the new Legal Services framework. A preliminary market engagement notice for a “Counsel Legal Services Framework” was recently published with a closing date for engagement on June 9, 2025, indicating that the full tender notice is imminent. Given our unique knowledge assets related to challenging public procurement decisions and pursuing competition law claims, we are perfectly positioned to tender for a place on this panel. This would enable us to offer our specialised legal services directly to public bodies, helping them design fairer procurement processes, defend against challenges, or even pursue their own claims against cartels, aligning our commercial goals with our public interest objectives. Similarly, CCS will be opening tenders for its “Outsourced Services” framework on October 2, 2025. This includes procurement and financial administration services. We could form a consortium to offer services that embed transparency and anti-cartel compliance checks into public sector back-office functions, a direct solution to the problems we have identified.