Opposition Challenges Renewal of Greener Ealing Contract
Lib Dems say competitive tender needed to ensure value for money
Greener Ealing staff at work. Picture: Greener Ealing
October 26, 2026
Ealing Liberal Democrats have challenged the Labour council’s decision to extend its contract with Greener Ealing Limited (GEL) until 2035, arguing that a competitive tender would provide a better test of value for money and that the financial assessment underpinning the extension does not adequately account for future investment costs.
Councillor Jonathan Oxley, the Liberal Democrats’ shadow spokesperson for finance, raised concerns about the proposed extension at a meeting of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee on Thursday 22 October.
GEL delivers a range of council services, including street cleaning, fly-tip clearance, parks maintenance, recycling, rubbish collection and parking enforcement. The extension would allow it to continue providing services without a new competitive tendering process.
Cllr Oxley argued that the council should reconsider the decision, citing concerns about service performance, including the failure to meet targets for assisted collections used by elderly and disabled residents who need additional help with their rubbish and recycling.
He also pointed to complaints from residents about dirty streets and fly-tipping, arguing that a competitive procurement exercise could encourage alternative approaches and establish whether another provider could deliver better services or lower costs.
“The Liberal Democrats are shocked that Ealing’s Labour administration has rejected the option of a competitive tender in favour of extending GEL's contract until 2035,” Cllr Oxley said.
“GEL's performance is distinctly average, and a competitive tender is a missed opportunity to test the market for innovative new approaches and better value for money.”
A central element of the dispute concerns the financial assessment used to support the extension. The council commissioned a shadow bid and value assessment, which the administration says demonstrates that GEL offers competitive costs.
Cllr Oxley argues that the assessment is backward-looking and does not adequately account for future capital expenditure, particularly the cost of replacing GEL’s fleet of waste and recycling vehicles as they reach the end of their working lives and transition to electric vehicles.
He said: “Instead, Ealing Labour justifies the extension based on a flawed consultant report that fails to consider the multi-million cost of renewing GEL's huge fleet of trucks and other vehicles. The administration's inability to provide any projection of the cost of vehicle renewal demonstrates a reckless disregard for financial prudence.”
The Liberal Democrats also questioned the extent to which residents can scrutinise the financial case, as the shadow bid is confidential. However, the council’s cabinet member for climate action, Councillor Dominic Moffitt, said opposition councillors had been given opportunities to examine the assessment privately and ask questions.
Defending the extension, Cllr Moffitt said GEL’s performance compared favourably with other London boroughs on several measures.
“GEL's performance is anything but average,” he said, citing a cross-party overview and scrutiny committee report published in February which found that Ealing had the third-lowest cost per head for the combined cost of waste disposal, recycling and trade waste, the eleventh-lowest cost of street cleansing per head, and the lowest cost for parks and open-space maintenance across London.
He added that these costs were achieved while Ealing maintained one of the highest recycling rates in the city.
Responding to concerns about confidentiality, Cllr Moffitt said opposition councillors had been able to read the shadow bid and question it during two private sessions, but had not taken up those opportunities.
He accused the opposition of “playing politics with a key resident service” and said the administration was focused on delivering value for money for residents.
Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism. Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets. We've always done that and won't be changing, in fact we'd like to do more. However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do. We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area. A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site. One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute. If you do support us in this way we'd be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor. For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you'd like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site. |