Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: March 10, 2026

Purpose:

Content: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RELATING TO THIS ITEM:   None   RESOLVED:   That Cabinet:   1.    Approved the commencement of a procurement for Home Care and Reablement services as separate lots. 2.    Agreed a contract term of up to eight years, with appropriate break clauses at year four and year six. 3.    Approved a commissioning mix that increased guaranteed hours from around 50% in Year?1 to around 70% by Year?3, with the remainder procured via the Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS). Appendix?A listed the indicative maximum number of hours per service agreement. 4.    Approved a Council?defined sustainable pricing approach, including a rate range and annual uplift mechanism, with flexibility to respond to exceptional circumstances. 5.    Agreed to an increased number of contracts and a cap on awards per provider to improve resilience and avoid over?concentration. 6.    Noted and approved the mobilisation approach, including TUPE where applicable, Electronic Call Monitoring (ECM), and phased transition arrangements. 7.    Delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health, to award contracts for Home Care and Reablement following completion of the procurement process.   Reasons for decision   Haringey supported around 1,500 people per year with Home Care and Reablement. Home Care provided support such as personal care and dressing, helping residents remain in their homes for longer. Reablement supported residents who had experienced, or were at risk of, hospital admission to regain skills lost during illness.   The proposed approach to retendering these services sustained and strengthened what was already working well in Haringey’s model while addressing current pressures. The locality?based, guaranteed?hours arrangements had improved responsiveness, workforce stability and hospital discharge, and enabled greater oversight of providers, supporting quality assurance and relationship?based practice. A re?procurement was required to preserve these gains and update the model for current market conditions.   Separating Home Care and Reablement into distinct lots emerged as a key learning from the current contract. Establishing Reablement as a separate service ensured clarity about its short?term, outcomes?focused role and allowed ongoing support to be commissioned and measured differently. Introducing Council?defined sustainable rates with transparent uplift rules aligned with the Council’s fair?pay commitments and the requirement to consider the actual cost of care, reducing the risk of provider exit or failure. Increasing the share of guaranteed hours to approximately 70%, distributing awards across more providers with caps per provider, and using ECM for billing and assurance collectively improved resilience, continuity and contract oversight.   Delegating contract award decisions to the relevant Cabinet Member enabled timely implementation following the conclusion of the tender process, ensured proportionate political oversight, and supported safe continuity of care for residents while complying with Contract Standing Orders.   Alternative options considered   Do nothing / rely solely on the DPS Rejected. Without call?off contracts, Brokerage would have needed to place all packages on the DPS, which was slower, offered less certainty for residents and providers, and would have weakened market stability and oversight. Extend current arrangements only Rejected. While short extensions supported continuity, a full re?procurement was required to secure updated terms, pricing, and capacity, and to comply with procurement regulations.   Deliver all home care in?house Rejected. This would have required significant set?up costs, Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration, management structures, and the fast transfer of a large workforce. It would also have been significantly more expensive than external provision, and the Council did not have the capacity or financial means to mobilise a borough?wide in?house service within required timescales.   Direct negotiation with incumbents only Rejected. This would have limited competition and risked non?compliance with procurement law given the anticipated contract values.