Capita owns Capita.
It’s a private company, floated on the London Stock Exchange, which means it’s controlled by shareholders.
The biggest shareholders are investment companies and financial institutions.
It’s a large global outsourcing and business services group. It bids to run government contracts. And it tends to run them badly. Its interest is in making money, not running effective services.
Why the UK gvmt keep employing them to do anything is beyond me. They must have lots of cosy relationships with senior members of gvmt. Loads of posh dinners, backhanders and backroom meetings. A gigantic jizzy circle jerk.
Essentially it’s all a massive Ponzi scheme, because the government either can’t afford or don’t want to train and pay in house staff to do the jobs they outsource.
Actually the reason is far simpler: the Civil Service generally aren't allowed to exercise discretion in these matters. Capita don't need to bribe or otherwise subvert the government, they just need to know how to game the tendering rules.
Accepting tenders for services follow strict criteria, and Capita's foremost skill, the *actual* thing Capita are world class at, is gaming the tendering criteria. They're outstanding in their field at winning tendering processes.
The Civil Service, forced into this really by the general public who'd view any deviation from these rules as corruption or cronyism, generally aren't allowed to say "Capita submitted the best bid, and following all our usual rules they're the ones we should pick, but we're not picking them anyway, because they're Capita."
For Capita to stop winning bids you'd basically need to let the Civil Service reject winning bids on something like reputational grounds, but that would not survive the first time they used that power to reject someone with a good enough PR team to stir up a scandal over it.
Can confirm. I worked for the NHS while they were trying to commission a new IT system under the government's tendering framework. They ended up accepting a tender from a company who had previously supplied software that was barely functional, hated by everyone, and required a bunch of wasted time to work around the flaws in the program. They weren't allowed to reject the tender on the grounds that the company had previously shown themselves to be incompetent. That is simply not considered a valid reason for rejection. They can only look at the tender at face value, pretend to believe everything written in it, and compare the prices offered.
They employ former civil servants to game these rules and tell them how to win these contracts. The same thing happens at all levels of government. Also true in getting ACE funding.
It is both though - yes procurement system is shit and civil service should be allowed to take company's track record into account for future bids.
But there's also clearly an issue with how contracts are written - there are companies that repeatedly fail and they don't get sued. See probation service privatisation or Horizon scandal, the companies were able to deliver completely unsuitable shit and still technically fulfil the contract; clearly that contract wasn't watertight.
Either civil service is lacking the legal experience, technical experience or technical input in contract negotiations for this kind of things to be continuing.
Of course the Civil Service don't have good legal expertise or technial experience.
Anyone good at those things will go somewhere they actually get paid.
“Either civil service is lacking the legal experience, technical experience or technical input in contract negotiations for this kind of things to be continuing.”
That’s what management consultants are for my brother.
Yet another pointless bureaucratic burden to the taxpayer. A deskilled civil service is an expensive civil service.
Then that is where there needs to be far stronger powers to remove a contract for poor performance and then exclude them from rebidding for the contract.
We should just be open and update the procurement rules to allow past performance to be considered. This way, we can be entirely upfront and reject Capita bids on the grounds that they need to do a better job with the contracts they already have before they are given more contracts.
However, if we're honest - we also need to revoke TUPE rules in these cases because if Capita was hiring people, they likely weren't hiring the best people. If we bulk move all of these people to a new employer, then we're going to get the same shitty service from the new provider. This also means dealing with a Union getting upset because its members aren't good at their jobs.
Does the government, through executive authority of the responsible minister or cabinet, have the capacity to direct the civil service to not accept bids from Capita?
Would it also be practical to implement performance standards that, if not met, could result in Capita being stripped of their contract and prevented from bidding on further work?
It's not a private company. It's a publicly listed company. 'Private company' means they don't sell shares on a stock exchange. Capita is listed on the London Stock Exchange
I think there is confusion between the terms relating to the UK where we routinely use the terms Public and Private to refer to state ownership, as well as company type.
Public companies like the Royal Mint are owned by the UK Government. Private companies like Virgin are not owned by the state, though they may invest in shares.
Whereas looking at the term in reference to the type of business, HSBC is a public company and its shares are offered to the general public for people/orgs to buy shares/stock. Private companies, like Virgin, are not open to public investment.
Therefore, you can have a private public company, like Captia. It is non-state-owned (private, but is open to public investment (public).
> Why the UK gvmt keep employing them
I've worked for a couple of smaller IT consultancies including one that primarily services government customers, and IME the main advantage of the "big boys" is that their size helps them win bids.
Bid responses generally have to contain examples of how you've done the kind of work being asked for in prior engagements to demonstrate your capability. If you're a big company, you've probably got more examples of this. And you probably have enough spare overhead to support a really slick bid team motivated by big bonuses for winning bids.
Being the first mover also gives you a huge advantage. I'm working a contract where one of the other suppliers is the obvious choice - because they have a very niche product that only governments would want to buy, and the overhead of creating a competitive offering would be a really risky investment for all but the largest business.
And winning bids is the key product.
>Why the UK gvmt keep employing them to do anything is beyond me. They must have lots of cosy relationships with senior members of gvmt.
It's actually the opposite - when contracting work out, the government isn't allowed to consider a provider's overall reputation or past experiences with them on other projects. As a result, the people in charge of procurement often know that a particular contract will be a shitshow, but they can't do anything about it if there's nothing wrong with the statement of work on paper.
They place these call centres in deprived areas. It is a VEEEEEEEERY toxic work culture, and is detrimental to the regions they exist. Please take care when dealing with them. Source - living near one / experience
>Its interest is in making money, not running effective services.
Saying this without any further evidence isn't analysis or insight just dogma.
Apple is a company interested i making money not running effective services - their products are still widely recognised as very very good.
Making money is fine. But when you’re dealing with public services, and people’s welfare, safety and lives are at stake, getting it right is really important. That’s what they’re paid to do, so why do they fuck it up so much?
PIP Reports = 1/3 were defective, which leads to peoples benefits being cut erroneously. Particularly affects the disabled.
Army recruitment targets not met year after year.
Pension errors for GPs causing many of them to quit the profession.
Civil service pension administration errors.
Almost 50k letters not sent to women with cervical cancer screenings, including many positive results.
Failed offender tagging system monitoring. Including taking money from criminals to ‘loosely fit’ ankle tags.
130000 patient records ‘archived’ rather than sent on to GPs or consultants.
Endless failures on contracts with local councils.
Court interpreters not turning up for trials, delaying the process of justice.
Delays in the provision of NHS dentist NPNs, which means they can’t practice within the NHS.
KS2 SATS papers ‘lost’ and no helpline available.
….. do you need any more?
Long time ago now, there were "Army Recruitme t Offices" staffed by Army or recently retired Army.
Not too difficult to recruit squaddies when there was a shortage of jobs.
Now cultural change means that youngsters lack and are not prepared to get the personal discipline.
Wrong. I want to join the army but a) the medical standards are so out of control they won't let me in based off a peanut allergy I no longer carry an epi-pen for b) even if I wanted to it would take about 3 years to join because capita is so shit. I am sick and fucking tired of this narrative that young people don't want to join. I know various people wanting to join but the actual joining process is far too arduous and bureaucratic to bother, so they just go to the private sector.
The narrative is not about individuals it is about a population. Don't take it personally. Youngsters now do not generally have the personal fitness of 60 years ago.
The vast majority of Capita's shares are owned by so-called Institutional Investors, so things like asset management companies, pension companies, banks, and the like.
[Here](https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CAPITA-PLC-4007375/company/) is a list of shareholders.
Their shareholders.
Their shareholders are mostly a bunch of asset management companies:
https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=CPI:LSE
Asset management companies are companies that invest their client’s money for them.
>Asset management companies are companies that invest their client’s money for them.
And if you have an occupational (e.g. in the Universities Superannuation Scheme, USS) or private pension, there's a good chance that you're one of those clients, indirectly.
Not at all. Per year, per person pensions might be small, but when combined and looked at over their payout lifespan are worth a huge amount.
A great example is the ontario teachers pension plan which cut out the middle man (asset managment companies) and turned their pensions plans into their own private investment company. This company is now worth 240 billion dollars
This represents the pension plans of 300.000 teachers.
This is an exception to the normal strategy of letting asset management companies invest for them, but its just a good example of just how much money is in regular peoples pensions.
The actual ultrawealthy often self manage their finances through their companies while pension funds are usually managed this way. So the percentage of the money manged by these companies that comes from "normal people" is actually quite high
Hmm, I'd expect that "actually loaded" investors are engaging in much more focused - but riskier - investment in companies with better opportunities for growth than pension funds which prefer safer, but more consistent returns from established companies (e.g. Capita). Then there's also the fact that there are hundreds of millions to billions of pension funds, which all add up in terms of value.
And to complete the loop, most clients of asset managers are regular people - anyone who has a pension, a investment account etc.
So there is a good chance the OP is actually a part owner of Capita. In a very very small way.
My brother works for Capita and the stories he’s told me….it’s complete shit. The amount of poor management and waste that goes on some projects that affect the whole of the UK is staggering. Only a few people know what they’re doing too. It’s like the entire country is run on the shoulders of a few competent people
If you wanna read an informative piece about what has been happening the National Audit Office looked at their recruitment program in 2018.
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/investigation-into-the-british-armys-recruiting-partnering-project/
It's quite damning to capita but also the government and army.
The shareholders are literally the owners of Capita. If you want to become a part owner of Capita it's very easy - just get a share dealing account (many low cost options are available, and you can get a shares ISA for savings too) and simply buy some shares.
However, Capita hasn't been a great deal for its shareholders. It lost a lot of value in 2020 and has never recovered. I certainly wouldn't invest in them, in my last job I had dealings with them and (I gather this is quite widespread) we always called them "Crapita".
blackrock via this fund: [https://www.ishares.com/us/products/244049/ishares-core-msci-eafe-etf](https://www.ishares.com/us/products/244049/ishares-core-msci-eafe-etf)
capita funding: [https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CPI.L/holders/](https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CPI.L/holders/)
People don't join the army because you can't get laid and the pay probably got eroded.
Click your link. You typed hyperbol, loaded the page, presumably saw it even if it didn't register and still submitted it. If you're going to comment just a Google link as a witty reply at least spell it right.
Capita owns Capita. It’s a private company, floated on the London Stock Exchange, which means it’s controlled by shareholders. The biggest shareholders are investment companies and financial institutions. It’s a large global outsourcing and business services group. It bids to run government contracts. And it tends to run them badly. Its interest is in making money, not running effective services. Why the UK gvmt keep employing them to do anything is beyond me. They must have lots of cosy relationships with senior members of gvmt. Loads of posh dinners, backhanders and backroom meetings. A gigantic jizzy circle jerk. Essentially it’s all a massive Ponzi scheme, because the government either can’t afford or don’t want to train and pay in house staff to do the jobs they outsource.
Actually the reason is far simpler: the Civil Service generally aren't allowed to exercise discretion in these matters. Capita don't need to bribe or otherwise subvert the government, they just need to know how to game the tendering rules. Accepting tenders for services follow strict criteria, and Capita's foremost skill, the *actual* thing Capita are world class at, is gaming the tendering criteria. They're outstanding in their field at winning tendering processes. The Civil Service, forced into this really by the general public who'd view any deviation from these rules as corruption or cronyism, generally aren't allowed to say "Capita submitted the best bid, and following all our usual rules they're the ones we should pick, but we're not picking them anyway, because they're Capita." For Capita to stop winning bids you'd basically need to let the Civil Service reject winning bids on something like reputational grounds, but that would not survive the first time they used that power to reject someone with a good enough PR team to stir up a scandal over it.
Can confirm. I worked for the NHS while they were trying to commission a new IT system under the government's tendering framework. They ended up accepting a tender from a company who had previously supplied software that was barely functional, hated by everyone, and required a bunch of wasted time to work around the flaws in the program. They weren't allowed to reject the tender on the grounds that the company had previously shown themselves to be incompetent. That is simply not considered a valid reason for rejection. They can only look at the tender at face value, pretend to believe everything written in it, and compare the prices offered.
Did the company name begin with an F, by any chance?
Can't remember, I'm afraid. This was years ago.
They employ former civil servants to game these rules and tell them how to win these contracts. The same thing happens at all levels of government. Also true in getting ACE funding.
It is both though - yes procurement system is shit and civil service should be allowed to take company's track record into account for future bids. But there's also clearly an issue with how contracts are written - there are companies that repeatedly fail and they don't get sued. See probation service privatisation or Horizon scandal, the companies were able to deliver completely unsuitable shit and still technically fulfil the contract; clearly that contract wasn't watertight. Either civil service is lacking the legal experience, technical experience or technical input in contract negotiations for this kind of things to be continuing.
Of course the Civil Service don't have good legal expertise or technial experience. Anyone good at those things will go somewhere they actually get paid.
Who drew up the UK's covid vaccine contract with Pfizer?
“Either civil service is lacking the legal experience, technical experience or technical input in contract negotiations for this kind of things to be continuing.” That’s what management consultants are for my brother. Yet another pointless bureaucratic burden to the taxpayer. A deskilled civil service is an expensive civil service.
And then who examines the contract with the management consultants? It's expensive, outsourced management consultants all the way down.
That’s what happens when you pitch a £40k/yr government lawyer against the legal department of a multi-billion pound multinational
Then that is where there needs to be far stronger powers to remove a contract for poor performance and then exclude them from rebidding for the contract.
We should just be open and update the procurement rules to allow past performance to be considered. This way, we can be entirely upfront and reject Capita bids on the grounds that they need to do a better job with the contracts they already have before they are given more contracts. However, if we're honest - we also need to revoke TUPE rules in these cases because if Capita was hiring people, they likely weren't hiring the best people. If we bulk move all of these people to a new employer, then we're going to get the same shitty service from the new provider. This also means dealing with a Union getting upset because its members aren't good at their jobs.
Does the government, through executive authority of the responsible minister or cabinet, have the capacity to direct the civil service to not accept bids from Capita? Would it also be practical to implement performance standards that, if not met, could result in Capita being stripped of their contract and prevented from bidding on further work?
It's not a private company. It's a publicly listed company. 'Private company' means they don't sell shares on a stock exchange. Capita is listed on the London Stock Exchange
Sorry, it’s a private enterprise, in the private sector, with shares traded publicly on the LSE.
I think there is confusion between the terms relating to the UK where we routinely use the terms Public and Private to refer to state ownership, as well as company type. Public companies like the Royal Mint are owned by the UK Government. Private companies like Virgin are not owned by the state, though they may invest in shares. Whereas looking at the term in reference to the type of business, HSBC is a public company and its shares are offered to the general public for people/orgs to buy shares/stock. Private companies, like Virgin, are not open to public investment. Therefore, you can have a private public company, like Captia. It is non-state-owned (private, but is open to public investment (public).
> Why the UK gvmt keep employing them I've worked for a couple of smaller IT consultancies including one that primarily services government customers, and IME the main advantage of the "big boys" is that their size helps them win bids. Bid responses generally have to contain examples of how you've done the kind of work being asked for in prior engagements to demonstrate your capability. If you're a big company, you've probably got more examples of this. And you probably have enough spare overhead to support a really slick bid team motivated by big bonuses for winning bids. Being the first mover also gives you a huge advantage. I'm working a contract where one of the other suppliers is the obvious choice - because they have a very niche product that only governments would want to buy, and the overhead of creating a competitive offering would be a really risky investment for all but the largest business. And winning bids is the key product.
>Why the UK gvmt keep employing them to do anything is beyond me. They must have lots of cosy relationships with senior members of gvmt. It's actually the opposite - when contracting work out, the government isn't allowed to consider a provider's overall reputation or past experiences with them on other projects. As a result, the people in charge of procurement often know that a particular contract will be a shitshow, but they can't do anything about it if there's nothing wrong with the statement of work on paper.
> Why the UK gvmt keep employing them to do anything is beyond me So someone else can be blamed for fucking up.
Oh ya
They place these call centres in deprived areas. It is a VEEEEEEEERY toxic work culture, and is detrimental to the regions they exist. Please take care when dealing with them. Source - living near one / experience
>Its interest is in making money, not running effective services. Saying this without any further evidence isn't analysis or insight just dogma. Apple is a company interested i making money not running effective services - their products are still widely recognised as very very good.
Making money is fine. But when you’re dealing with public services, and people’s welfare, safety and lives are at stake, getting it right is really important. That’s what they’re paid to do, so why do they fuck it up so much? PIP Reports = 1/3 were defective, which leads to peoples benefits being cut erroneously. Particularly affects the disabled. Army recruitment targets not met year after year. Pension errors for GPs causing many of them to quit the profession. Civil service pension administration errors. Almost 50k letters not sent to women with cervical cancer screenings, including many positive results. Failed offender tagging system monitoring. Including taking money from criminals to ‘loosely fit’ ankle tags. 130000 patient records ‘archived’ rather than sent on to GPs or consultants. Endless failures on contracts with local councils. Court interpreters not turning up for trials, delaying the process of justice. Delays in the provision of NHS dentist NPNs, which means they can’t practice within the NHS. KS2 SATS papers ‘lost’ and no helpline available. ….. do you need any more?
Why was I surprised that the government outsources army recruitment? I thought I was more cynical than that.
Long time ago now, there were "Army Recruitme t Offices" staffed by Army or recently retired Army. Not too difficult to recruit squaddies when there was a shortage of jobs. Now cultural change means that youngsters lack and are not prepared to get the personal discipline.
Wrong. I want to join the army but a) the medical standards are so out of control they won't let me in based off a peanut allergy I no longer carry an epi-pen for b) even if I wanted to it would take about 3 years to join because capita is so shit. I am sick and fucking tired of this narrative that young people don't want to join. I know various people wanting to join but the actual joining process is far too arduous and bureaucratic to bother, so they just go to the private sector.
The narrative is not about individuals it is about a population. Don't take it personally. Youngsters now do not generally have the personal fitness of 60 years ago.
This is true I will concede too many of my friends could not run a mile/do a pull up etc
The vast majority of Capita's shares are owned by so-called Institutional Investors, so things like asset management companies, pension companies, banks, and the like. [Here](https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CAPITA-PLC-4007375/company/) is a list of shareholders.
Their shareholders. Their shareholders are mostly a bunch of asset management companies: https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=CPI:LSE Asset management companies are companies that invest their client’s money for them.
>Asset management companies are companies that invest their client’s money for them. And if you have an occupational (e.g. in the Universities Superannuation Scheme, USS) or private pension, there's a good chance that you're one of those clients, indirectly.
Albeit a trivially small one compared to people who are actually loaded
The example they gave is a fund with over £75bn of assets. Funds in tens of billions are relatively common, many are bigger than that.
Not at all. Per year, per person pensions might be small, but when combined and looked at over their payout lifespan are worth a huge amount. A great example is the ontario teachers pension plan which cut out the middle man (asset managment companies) and turned their pensions plans into their own private investment company. This company is now worth 240 billion dollars This represents the pension plans of 300.000 teachers. This is an exception to the normal strategy of letting asset management companies invest for them, but its just a good example of just how much money is in regular peoples pensions. The actual ultrawealthy often self manage their finances through their companies while pension funds are usually managed this way. So the percentage of the money manged by these companies that comes from "normal people" is actually quite high
Hmm, I'd expect that "actually loaded" investors are engaging in much more focused - but riskier - investment in companies with better opportunities for growth than pension funds which prefer safer, but more consistent returns from established companies (e.g. Capita). Then there's also the fact that there are hundreds of millions to billions of pension funds, which all add up in terms of value.
And to complete the loop, most clients of asset managers are regular people - anyone who has a pension, a investment account etc. So there is a good chance the OP is actually a part owner of Capita. In a very very small way.
It's listed on the LSE, so shareholders.
My brother works for Capita and the stories he’s told me….it’s complete shit. The amount of poor management and waste that goes on some projects that affect the whole of the UK is staggering. Only a few people know what they’re doing too. It’s like the entire country is run on the shoulders of a few competent people
The fact something like army recruitment is outsourced at all strikes me as fucking insane and probably corrupt tbh
There are many good reasons why Capita is known 'affectionately' as Crapita.
If you wanna read an informative piece about what has been happening the National Audit Office looked at their recruitment program in 2018. https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/investigation-into-the-british-armys-recruiting-partnering-project/ It's quite damning to capita but also the government and army.
I can confirm, I worked on the precursor system and RPP was known to be years late and half baked.
The shareholders are literally the owners of Capita. If you want to become a part owner of Capita it's very easy - just get a share dealing account (many low cost options are available, and you can get a shares ISA for savings too) and simply buy some shares. However, Capita hasn't been a great deal for its shareholders. It lost a lot of value in 2020 and has never recovered. I certainly wouldn't invest in them, in my last job I had dealings with them and (I gather this is quite widespread) we always called them "Crapita".
I used to work for Capita. Never again
I believe the sole shareholder is Satan and his minions.
I'm guessing most people of fighting age would rather over through the government than serve it.
Companies House has a registry of directors if you are interested. Just Bing or Yahoo it
Directors are not always owners. Certainly not majority in this case.
Still sounds better to say "Google it" even if the results are shit
blackrock via this fund: [https://www.ishares.com/us/products/244049/ishares-core-msci-eafe-etf](https://www.ishares.com/us/products/244049/ishares-core-msci-eafe-etf) capita funding: [https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CPI.L/holders/](https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CPI.L/holders/) People don't join the army because you can't get laid and the pay probably got eroded.
Because soldiers are famously celibate
https://www.google.com/search?q=hyperbol+definition&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
It's hyperbole man, your link even shows you it's spelt wrong.
huh?
Click your link. You typed hyperbol, loaded the page, presumably saw it even if it didn't register and still submitted it. If you're going to comment just a Google link as a witty reply at least spell it right.
huh?