A shocking situation has unfolded at Trentham Academy, a secondary school in Stoke-on-Trent, where students are facing unimaginable challenges due to unfinished repairs. The school's swimming pool is barricaded, and the heating system has failed during crucial exam periods, leaving students shivering and struggling to concentrate.
This is just one of 88 schools in the area that were part of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract, a controversial arrangement where private companies maintain buildings in exchange for profits. The contract, one of the largest in the UK, is now coming to an end, and the consequences are dire.
A Broken Promise
The PFI contract, signed 25 years ago, was meant to ensure the schools were well-maintained. However, as the contract neared its end, a BBC investigation revealed concerns that vital repairs would remain unfinished. And indeed, that's exactly what happened.
The end of the contract is critical because if the buildings are not in good condition, the public must foot the bill. In this case, millions of pounds worth of work was identified, but not all of it was completed on time.
A Web of Complexity
Shortly after the contract ended, the PFI company, Transform Schools (Stoke) Ltd (TSSL), went into liquidation, leaving a trail of unfinished repairs, unpaid contractors, and a city council scrambling to pick up the pieces. The situation became even more complex when TSSL agreed to extend its obligations, but this was rendered moot by their insolvency.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council had promised to set aside funds to ensure the schools were safe and comfortable, but allegations suggest that work slowed down significantly in the final year of the contract. Repairs were marked as closed without the issues being resolved, leaving students and staff in the cold.
The Impact on Students
On the day the BBC visited Trentham, students preparing for their science GCSEs were bundled up in layers, some even wearing coats. The heating system had failed repeatedly, and classrooms relied on small electric heaters.
"It's simply so cold, and no one wants to work," said Kai, a student at Trentham. The school has to send pupils home to learn remotely if classrooms become too cold, disrupting their education further.
The school pool, once used by local primaries for swimming lessons, remains closed due to leaks and structural issues.
A Lack of Accountability
The schools involved had been paying regular fees to TSSL to manage building issues, but the process was fraught with problems. A large subcontractor, Equans, ran the contract helpdesk and explained that TSSL insisted on signing off work costing more than £250, leading to repeated delays and unfinished jobs.
Even small repairs, like a water issue with a sink at Smallthorne Primary School, were caught up in this bureaucratic mess. The issue was first reported in May 2025 but remained unresolved by the end of the contract in October.
A Troubling Legacy
Surveys of the 88 schools in 2021 and 2024 warned that their condition was graded "amber/red", indicating major work was needed. Despite these warnings, the council's promises, and an agreement being reached, TSSL went into Creditors Voluntary Liquidation, leaving the schools in limbo.
The council has withheld further funds from TSSL and set aside money for repairs, but the extent of the remaining bill is unclear.
A Call for Transparency
Questions remain about why work slowed down and how much profit was made over the 25 years. The complex company structures involved make it difficult to trace the profits, but BBC analysis suggests the founder of Innisfree, David Metter, and his family have made at least £130m in dividends from PFI investments.
Innisfree, the parent company of TSSL, declined to comment on the situation, stating that these matters are subject to commercial contract. The directors of TSSL have not responded to the concerns raised.
A Controversial Legacy
The end of these PFI contracts has long been a source of concern. In 2021, MPs warned that academy schools might be left to fund outstanding repairs, while PFI investors could walk away with limited consequences.
This situation raises important questions about the value of public money in PFI contracts and the accountability of private companies. What do you think? Should there be stricter regulations to ensure these contracts benefit the public, or is this a case of the system failing those it was meant to serve?
