When Transform Schools (Stoke) Ltd (TSSL), the company tasked with maintaining 88 schools in Stoke-on-Trent under England’s largest school Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract, announced it was going into liquidation, it sent ripples of concern through the city’s education community and beyond. After a 25-year contract that expired on October 25, 2025, millions of pounds worth of repairs and maintenance remain unfinished, leaving parents, teachers, and local officials scrambling for solutions and raising questions about the future of dozens of similar PFI deals across the country.
For years, schools in Stoke-on-Trent paid TSSL to keep their buildings safe and in good condition, as part of a scheme that saw private companies build and maintain public infrastructure in exchange for mortgage-style payments. But as the contract drew to a close, cracks—both literal and metaphorical—began to show. According to Schools Week, by late August 2025, £7.2 million worth of ‘hand-back works’—repairs and upgrades required before the schools could revert to public hands—were still outstanding. TSSL claimed £2.3 million of those works had been completed and simply needed sign-off, but Stoke-on-Trent City Council had already dipped into taxpayers’ pockets to the tune of £3.5 million to fill the growing void.
The situation reached a head in mid-November, when, as reported by BBC News, the council sent a letter to schools confirming that TSSL had engaged an insolvency practitioner and was taking steps to enter a creditors voluntary liquidation. In plain terms, the company’s directors had decided to shut down, even as disputes over who would pay for unfinished repairs raged on. The council’s chief executive, Jon Rouse, acknowledged the uncertainty this left for schools and suppliers alike, stating in the letter, “The council understands that some of TSSL’s contractors may be left unpaid or part-paid, and that not all commenced works have been fully and satisfactorily completed.”
For the schools affected, the implications were immediate and deeply concerning. Some suppliers, who had provided services to TSSL, were left without payment, while warranties for completed works had yet to be obtained. In some cases, works were not just unfinished—they were not even started, or carried out to a standard that satisfied the schools or the council. The council responded by setting up a specific helpline and dedicated mailbox for creditors, promising to work through the issues on a case-by-case basis.
But the fallout extended beyond just unpaid bills. According to the BBC, nearly half of the schools had been withholding payments to TSSL in the months leading up to the contract’s end, citing disputes over outstanding work and concerns about the quality of repairs already performed. This growing mistrust only deepened as the company’s financial troubles became public. Gareth Snell, Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, didn’t mince words, telling the BBC it was “extremely disappointing but entirely unsurprising that TSSL is walking away from the commitments they made.” He continued, “There are serious answers needed over the oversight of the contract,” and pointed out that schools still had questions about “when work will be finished, how it is being paid for and who will make sure the buildings used to teach our children are in good condition.”
Stoke-on-Trent City Council, for its part, insisted it had “planned for this scenario,” reassuring schools and parents that it would use a blend of remaining handback funds, other funding withheld from TSSL for non-delivery, and its own resources to ensure all outstanding repairs were completed. In a statement to Schools Week, a council spokesperson said, “First and foremost, we want to reassure schools and parents that we have planned for this scenario and our intention is to work jointly with schools to establish a final list of outstanding works and agree a clear position on responsibility, the nature of the work required and who is best to deliver this work.”
The council had even entered a supplemental agreement with TSSL back in May 2025, establishing a back-stop period for works to be completed. Still, as inflation soared, the council agreed in September to pay up to £3.5 million to cover extra costs identified since the original hand-back condition surveys were carried out. “Our commitment remains to deliver the best possible outcome and ensure that children in Stoke-on-Trent have safe, high-quality school environments,” the council stated.
Yet, as the dust settles in Stoke-on-Trent, the story is far from over. The National Audit Office had warned as far back as 2020 that, without adequate preparation for the end of PFI contracts, there was “a significant risk that vital infrastructure such as schools and hospitals will not be returned to the public sector in the right condition and taxpayers and service users will bear the brunt of additional costs.” The Stoke case, as the first of dozens of similar PFI deals set to expire in England over the next several years, has become a cautionary tale for councils and school trusts across the country.
Government data shows there are 219 active PFI contracts in education in the UK, with 170 in England alone. Of those, 43 are set to end within the next seven years. At the Education Estates conference in October 2025, experts warned that schools, trusts, and local authorities could face billions of pounds in unplanned maintenance costs as these contracts come to an end. The fear, voiced by many, is that the public sector may be left to pick up the pieces—both financially and physically—when private partners walk away.
Looking ahead, the council has promised a full evaluation of the contract, aiming to learn lessons and avoid repeating the same mistakes. But for the families, teachers, and pupils of Stoke-on-Trent, the immediate priority remains clear: ensuring that their schools are safe, well-maintained, and fit for purpose, no matter who holds the contract.
As more PFI deals reach their expiry dates, all eyes will be on how local authorities manage the transition, safeguard public assets, and protect the interests of the communities they serve. For Stoke-on-Trent, the challenge is daunting, but the resolve to see it through is palpable.
