13/05/2026
Public Report Regarding Concerns Over SF Services Payments and Financial Controls at Attleborough Town Council
At the meeting of Attleborough Town Council held on Monday 10 May 2026, the majority of councillors present — with the exception of Cllr G Dalton and Cllr J Taylor — voted to block Agenda Item 9a relating to the authorisation of payments. This decision followed concerns raised regarding payments made to SF Services during April 2026.
On 10 May 2026, I submitted a request to Attleborough Town Council seeking access to SF Services timesheets in order to verify a payment of £1,788 listed as: “Cleaning and maintenance Town Hall”
In response, the council stated:
“We are yet to receive time sheets for the week commencing 20th April 2026 & 27th April 2026 and would not be able to supply the month as you have requested.”
Following this response, two further questions were asked to the council. No response has been received.
1. Please clarify how councillors are expected to authorise payments for SF Services when the relevant timesheets have neither been provided nor verified. In particular, under whose authority was this payment approved, and on what basis was payment made in the absence of submitted timesheets?
2. How many additional invoices for SF Services have been paid without valid supporting timesheets?
The absence of supporting timesheets prior to payment authorisation raises concerns regarding:
* Contract management procedures
* Payment approval controls
* Budgetary oversight
* Verification of contractor hours worked
* Approval processes for work potentially outside the contract scope
* Audit trail consistency and record keeping
The graph attached clearly indicates that taxpayer spending on contracted caretaker services has increased materially compared with previous arrangements and appears to continue trending upward.
In the interests of transparency, it is important to note that I formally submitted a Freedom of Information request on 8 August 2025 raising concerns regarding the legitimacy and oversight of SF Services. The request sought access to invoices and supporting timesheets, together with the following documentation:
* Current public liability and employer’s liability insurance certificates.
* All risk assessments and method statements relevant to caretaker duties.
* Training and competency records, including manual handling, health and safety, and any specialist tasks.
* The contract or agreement outlining responsibilities, insurance, and liability.
* Details of how the caretaker’s performance is monitored, measured, and signed off.
At the time, the intent of my request was challenged and the requested documentation was not provided.
During this period, I also raised concerns regarding the legitimacy and robustness of the procurement process relating to the subcontracted caretaker role, as I do not believe the process appears to have been conducted with the level of transparency and scrutiny ordinarily expected for a public sector appointment.
A member of the public additionally raised the following concern:
“SF Services started because the council were advertising for a caretaker and SF couldn’t apply as he was a councillor, so the company SF Services was formed so he could do it until such times as a caretaker was appointed.
To date there has been no further advertisement for this post, so who decided that he was to continue on a rolling three-month contract? And why was the caretaker role not re-advertised?”
These concerns raise legitimate questions regarding the procurement process, decision-making procedures, contract extensions, transparency, and governance surrounding the appointment.
I have attached an extract from my Freedom of Information request relating to the SF Services tender documentation and the procurement process for further reference.
Nine months later, there now appears to be clear evidence that payments to SF Services have been authorised despite valid supporting timesheets not being available — an issue which I had already formally brought to the attention of the council’s administration.
I would also like to draw attention to the attached Attleborough Town Council caretaker contract.
The contract clearly states that the agreed provision is 18 hours per week, with any additional hours to be undertaken only by mutual agreement and consent. This therefore raises the question of where the documented authorisation and mutual consent exist for hours worked beyond the contracted 18 hours per week on a recurring monthly basis.
Attached is a spreadsheet setting out the additional hours worked, together with the corresponding taxpayer expenditure incurred beyond the scope of the original contracted hours.
Financial Year 2024/25
* Contracted hours: 936
* Actual hours claimed: 1,347.5
* This means an additional 411.5 hours were worked beyond the agreed contract.
Financially:
* Contracted expenditure: £14,976.00
* Actual expenditure claimed: £21,560.62
* Overspend above contract: £6,584.62
This represents a 44% increase above the contracted budget.
Financial Year 2025/26
* Contracted hours: 936
* Actual hours claimed: 1,384.9
* This is an excess of 448.9 hours over the agreed level.
Financially:
* Contracted expenditure: £14,976.00
* Actual expenditure claimed: £22,158.00
* Overspend above contract: £7,182.00
This equates to a 48% increase above the contracted budget.
Two-Year Total
Over the full two-year period:
* Total contracted hours: 1,872
* Total actual hours claimed: 2,732.4
* This is approximately 860 additional hours above contract.
Financial totals:
* Total contracted expenditure: £29,952.00
* Total actual expenditure: £43,718.62
* Total additional expenditure: £13,766.62
Overall, spending was 46% higher than the contracted amount.
Given the increase in expenditure, alongside reported inconsistencies in supporting documentation and changes in payment references following public scrutiny, it is reasonable for councillors and residents to seek greater transparency regarding:
* Contract oversight
* Deliverables and service standards
* Authorisation procedures
* Procurement compliance
* Financial controls
* Overall value for money for taxpayers
The issues identified raise legitimate questions regarding transparency, governance, financial controls, and procurement compliance. While these concerns do not in themselves establish wrongdoing or illegality, they do appear to justify further scrutiny and clarification from the council.
The decision by Cllr G Dalton and Cllr J Taylor to support authorisation of the payments despite the concerns raised has also promoted questions towards me from residents.
Given:
* the sustained increase in expenditure,
* the apparent absence of supporting timesheets prior to certain payments being authorised,
* concerns regarding contract administration and audit trail consistency, and
* the wider public interest in ensuring the proper stewardship of taxpayer funds,
* the increase of concerns that have been voiced to me by residents
I will therefore be formally requesting an independent review of:
* the SF Services contract,
* associated payments,
* procurement processes,
* payment approval procedures, and
* the council’s financial controls
covering the entire period concerned.
Such a review would help provide reassurance to residents and taxpayers that public funds have been properly authorised, appropriately evidenced, and managed in accordance with the expected standards of public accountability, transparency, and governance.
