Guiding you through UK subject access requests with clarity and confidence.
Rated 5 stars
★★★★★
Page 4 — Follow the Money
3 Key phrases
public sector contracts UK, monopoly profiteering, corporate accountability
SEO title
Follow the Money | UK Contracts, Monopolies & Accountability
Meta description
Track public contracts, monopolies and profiteering. We map who benefits, what was promised, and
Public money is supposed to buy public value. Too often it buys opacity, outsourcing layers, and a contract structure that rewards the supplier even when the service fails. “Follow the Money” is where we map the UK’s hidden economy of public services: procurement, monopolies, and the quiet transfer of risk and cost from institutions to everyday people.
Monopoly doesn’t always look like one company. It can look like “approved providers”, closed frameworks, or a captive market where choice is theoretical. In prisons, that can mean communication and essentials priced above reality because the customer can’t walk away. In local government, it can mean a contractor that keeps winning despite poor performance because switching costs are high and accountability is low. In national systems, it can mean mega-contracts that are too big to fail and too complex to scrutinise.
Our investigations focus on:
• Who got the contract, on what terms, and for how long.
• What performance was promised, and what penalties exist on paper.
• What was actually delivered, and how failures were recorded.
• Where the money flows: subcontractors, consultants, “change requests”, and extensions.
We use primary sources where possible: tender documents, contract notices, KPI schedules, annual reports, audit findings, FOI disclosures, and internal policy. We look for the gap between “service level” language and lived reality. We also track how narratives are built: when a project is framed as “efficiency”, who benefits, and who loses bargaining power.
This isn’t anti-business. It’s anti-unaccountable power. A company can profit and still be held to contract terms. A public body can outsource and still be transparent. The problem starts when a supplier becomes untouchable and a department treats scrutiny as hostility.
You’ll see stories here that connect prisons and probation to the wider political economy. If a system can extract money from the least powerful people in society, it will try the same logic elsewhere—only more politely. The paperwork is the common language.
If you want to understand why services get worse while budgets grow, start here. We’ll show you the procurement trail, the contract structure, and the incentives that sit behind the headlines. The point is not outrage for its own sake. The point is accountability that survives spin.
Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence.
Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability. Evidence. Transparency. Accountability.
Sources used (web research)