Kent Police closed its seven-year Medway Commercial Group fraud inquiry without charges. Councillors vote on 15 October on a formal complaint to the IOPC.
Medway Council is set to make a formal complaint about Kent Police’s handling of a fraud inquiry into the council’s own trading company. The police closed the case this summer, seven years after the council reported it, with no charges brought.
Full council will be asked on Thursday 15 October to instruct the chief executive to send the complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The report also asks that the IOPC passes the complaint to a different police force, not to Kent Police or the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner.
The papers were published on the agenda for the 15 October meeting. They are written by the council’s Monitoring Officer and its Head of Internal Audit and Counter Fraud.
No one has been charged
The report is clear on this, and so are we. No criminal charges have been brought and no one has been convicted. The council’s own lawyers remind councillors that “the law mandates that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty”, and that the report’s focus is the police investigation, not the conduct of anyone named in it (council report). We are not naming the individuals for that reason.
What Medway Commercial Group was
The council set up Medway Commercial Group (MCG) in 2015 as a local authority trading company. Its job was to run services for the council at a profit, which a council itself cannot do. The council owned 100% of it and appointed its chief executive and board, which included a sitting councillor as chairman (council report).
How the case unfolded
The council’s chronology and police timeline set out the key dates:
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 19 October 2018 | A company contractor raises concerns with the council’s chief legal officer under whistleblowing rules |
| November to December 2018 | Internal audit recommends a police referral; the then leadership declines until the internal inquiry is finished |
| 25 February 2019 | Internal audit report lists 13 points of suspicion that offences may have been committed by three people |
| March 2019 | The council refers the case to Kent Police |
| 2020 to 2025 | Detectives on the case change several times, including after retirements |
| August 2024 | Police tell the council the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the case with a view to a charging strategy |
| December 2024 to January 2025 | A new detective sends a list of about 72 evidence requests, rising to about 120 |
| July 2025 | Work pauses while a new team takes over |
| 1 June 2026 | Police email a fresh list of material needed |
| 6 July 2026 | Kent Police’s closure letter is dated; the council timeline records formal notice on 13 July |
The concerns were that senior staff and board members were invoicing the company through firms linked to them, and that work was done on projects linked to a board member’s company without being recharged. These are allegations. None has been tested in court.
Why the police closed it
Kent Police’s letter is signed by a Detective Chief Superintendent who heads the Kent and Essex serious crime fraud teams. It says “significant evidential gaps remain” and that key material “is either no longer retained or was never created” (closure letter).
The letter also says there is “no evidentially agreed loss or gain” that could be relied on in court. It adds that the decision “should not be interpreted as a finding that the concerns raised by Medway Council were unfounded”.
Why the council is complaining
Council officers say they were “shocked” by the police’s June 2026 request. They say it “reads as an initiation document for an investigation and not one which had commenced seven years earlier” (council report).
That June email asked the council for, among other things:
- an organisation chart from when MCG was set up
- signed contracts for two of the people under investigation
- an explanation of MCG’s reported losses, including £1.4 million and £2.3 million in two years
- whether goods or services were received for payments of £700,533.79 to three firms
- a “definitive assessment of financial loss”, which the police said they could not determine themselves
Officers say many documents no longer existed, and some answers depended on the memories of staff who have since left. They believe that if the material had been asked for earlier, “it is likely that the Council would have been able to respond more positively”.
Why another force
The report notes that the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner’s election agent in 2016 was one of the three people named in the original concerns. It says that because of “potential conflicts of interest”, the council should ask the IOPC to have another police force look at the complaint (council report).
There is no time limit on making a complaint to the IOPC, the report adds.
What it means for you
MCG was owned by the council, so any money it lost was ultimately public money. The council has not put a figure on that loss, and the police say no agreed figure exists.
The complaint is about whether the investigation was run properly. It cannot reopen the criminal case by itself. If councillors approve it, the IOPC decides what happens next, including which force, if any, reviews Kent Police’s handling.
The report says the council has made a number of changes since 2023 to strengthen how its companies are governed. The council’s wider money troubles are covered in our report on the £65.9m budget gap for 2027/28.
Full council is open to the public. It meets at 7pm on 15 October at the St George’s Centre, Chatham Maritime; papers are on the meeting page.
Have your say