<\/p>\n
HM Revenue & Customs launches an investigation into Ayanda Capital over potential tax underpayments linked to a \u00a3255 million Covid-19 protective equipment contract, as the government faces ongoing controversy over the use of fast-track procurement processes during the pandemic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
An investment company that secured a \u00a3255 million contract for supplying protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic is currently under investigation by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over potential underpayment of tax. Ayanda Capital, led by Tim Horlick, is being scrutinised to determine whether it fulfilled its tax obligations on the income earned from pandemic-related contracts, according to sources familiar with the situation. The company has stated it is fully cooperating with the legally confidential HMRC enquiries but has declined to provide further comments. HMRC, maintaining its usual stance, neither confirmed nor denied the investigation.<\/p>\n
Ayanda Capital\u2019s entry into the PPE supply chain attracted controversy as it had no previous experience in this field, specialising before in private equity and currency trading. The company was awarded contracts through what became known as the \u201cVIP procurement lane,\u201d a fast-track process designed to expedite supplies but criticised for favouring firms with political connections. One of Ayanda\u2019s senior board advisers, Andrew Mills, was simultaneously an unpaid government adviser on the Board of Trade when Ayanda’s contract was awarded, increasing scrutiny of the procurement process. Roughly 50 million face masks supplied by Ayanda were found unusable due to failing to meet safety requirements, though some of their other products did pass quality tests.<\/p>\n
Legal challenges over the procurement process culminated in a High Court ruling in 2022 that the government acted unlawfully in operating the VIP lane but concluded firms like Ayanda would have been prioritised anyway given their capacity to deliver large volumes of PPE. Ayanda highlighted that the contract had already been thoroughly investigated during the Good Law Project\u2019s judicial review against the government, with the court rejecting claims against Ayanda specifically.<\/p>\n
Separately, another PPE supplier, PPE Medpro, linked to former Conservative peer Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman, is embroiled in a financial and legal mess following its provision of substandard medical gowns. The High Court ordered PPE Medpro to repay \u00a3148 million for gowns supplied to the NHS that failed sterility standards, rendering the equipment unsuitable for healthcare use. This decision followed a 2025 lawsuit in which the government won \u00a3122 million in damages after proving the firm breached its contract.<\/p>\n
PPE Medpro\u2019s financial troubles intensified as the company entered administration owing \u00a339 million in taxes, alongside having less than \u00a31 million in assets available. The company\u2019s past classification as a \u2018small\u2019 firm, based on balance sheet and staff numbers rather than turnover, allowed it to file abridged accounts despite handling substantial government contracts, sparking calls for reform to improve transparency of companies involved in large-scale public procurement.<\/p>\n
Baroness Mone herself admitted to misleading the public about her involvement with PPE Medpro, acknowledging that both she and her husband financially benefited from the company\u2019s contracts but contending that they were scapegoats in a wider scandal over government pandemic spending. The couple\u2019s links to PPE Medpro and the questionable circumstances of the supply deals have made them focal points of criticism amid growing concerns about the integrity and governance of emergency procurement during the pandemic.<\/p>\n
With PPE Medpro partners reportedly open to a potential settlement with the government to resolve the litigation and outstanding debts, the saga exemplifies the ongoing fallout from rapid, politically influenced procurement decisions made during the crisis. HMRC\u2019s investigation into Ayanda represents another chapter in the broader scrutiny of firms that benefited from government contracts under controversial VIP lanes, raising persistent questions about the balance between emergency response efficiency and due diligence in public spending.<\/p>\n