KCC Paid PCAS Kent £16.5m As Director Loans and Inadequate Care Rating Raise Questions
shepwayvox
Kent County Council has paid millions to a supported-living care provider now rated Inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. The company’s accounts don’t show insolvency. They show something more awkward: rising public payments, unaudited small-company filings, serious regulator findings, and a balance sheet increasingly dependent on money owed back by its own directors.
Kent taxpayers have paid PCAS Kent Ltd £16,529,634.32 (net) in Adult Social Care directorate payments between April 2022 and March 2026 according to its published invoices over £250. The verified ASC-only payment file shows £3,521,766.89 in 2022/23, £3,944,983.83 in 2023/24, £4,388,761.77 in 2024/25 and £4,674,121.83 in 2025/26. So the first question isn’t complicated. Is this value for money? And is the taxpayer of Kent getting value for money when so much public money is going to a provider now rated Inadequate?
The accounts reviewed cover the year ended 31 August 2022, the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 March 2023, the year ended 31 March 2024 and the year ended 31 March 2025. They are unaudited small-company accounts. The income statement has not been delivered, which means the public cannot see turnover, profit before tax, directors’ pay, dividends, wage costs, or exactly how public money flowed through the business.
PCAS Kent Ltd’s accounts list the directors asC Crockford and Ms M Elliott, with the registered office in Faversham. The 2025 accounts list Blackwood Futcher & Co, Chartered Accountants, of Farnham, Surrey, as accountants.
The regulator’s view is stark. CQC currently rates PCAS Kent Ltd Inadequate overall. Its latest inspection summary says CQC completed an assessment between 24 March 2025 and 7 April 2025. The service was not meeting “right support, right care, right culture” guidance, and CQC said this had a detrimental impact on people’s lives.
CQC said PCAS failed to ensure people’s health risks were well managed, failed to ensure people were supported by suitably qualified and competent staff, had not managed medicines safely, and did not always treat people with dignity, kindness and respect. CQC also found a lack of effective oversight and said audits and checks had not identified serious and widespread issues. It identified six breaches: person-centred care, safeguarding, safe care and treatment, consent, staffing and good governance. The service was placed in special measures.
That timing matters. PCAS’s 2025 accounts were approved on 17 September 2025. CQC’s latest report was published on 30 July 2025. So when the directors signed the 2025 accounts, the Inadequate rating and special-measures finding were already public. The accounts contain no narrative explanation of that regulatory risk because the public filing is limited by the small-company reporting regime.
PCAS isn’t insolvent from the filed accounts. At 31 March 2025 it reported £385,350 cash at bank, £692,715 debtors, £321,377 creditors falling due within one year and £745,178 net assets. Average employee numbers rose from 178 in 2024 to 199 in 2025. The company was still operating, still employing staff and still holding cash. But the composition of the balance sheet raises harder questions.
The central issue is the directors’ own balances. The accounts disclose “directors’ advances, credits and guarantees”. At 31 March 2025, Craig Crockford owed PCAS £189,935 and Michelle Elliott owed £190,680. Together, the two directors owed the company £380,615. No interest was paid on those balances. That means more than half of PCAS’s reported net assets consisted of money owed back to the company by its own directors.
This was not a one-year blip. The directors owed PCAS £9,206 between them at 31 August 2021, £155,301 at 31 August 2022, £173,917 at 31 March 2023, £260,095 at 31 March 2024 and £380,615 at 31 March 2025. From the 2022 year-end to the 2025 year-end alone, the amount owed by the directors increased by £225,314, about 145%.
PCAS changed its year-end in 2023, so the accounts for that period cover seven months, from 1 September 2022 to 31 March 2023. During that period, net assets rose from £624,338 to £784,803, cash rose from £355,417 to £458,697 and the directors’ balances rose from £155,301 to £173,917. Craig Crockford repaid £3,500 but was advanced £12,886; Michelle Elliott repaid £3,500 but was advanced £12,730. No interest was paid.
The following year was much weaker. Net assets fell from £784,803 at 31 March 2023 to £580,073 at 31 March 2024. Cash fell from £458,697 to £297,483. Net current assets fell from £697,156 to £568,348. Because the income statement is not delivered, the public accounts do not show whether that deterioration came from trading losses, dividends, tax, investment, exceptional costs or a mixture of factors. But the balance sheet weakened while the directors’ balances increased.
In 2025, the balance sheet improved, but the director balances rose again. Net assets increased to £745,178, cash rose to £385,350 and net current assets rose to £756,688. During the same year, Craig Crockford was advanced £144,380 and repaid £84,500, leaving £189,935 owed. Michelle Elliott was advanced £144,890 and repaid £84,250, leaving £190,680 owed. Across both directors, PCAS advanced £289,270 and received £168,750 back. The year-end director balance rose by £120,520.
The debtor figure is heavily director-driven. In 2025, PCAS had £692,715 of debtors. Trade debtors were £252,748. Other debtors were £439,967. The £380,615 owed by the directors represented 86.5% of other debtors and 54.9% of total debtors. In plain English, a large part of the company’s balance-sheet strength depends on the directors paying money back.
There is also an apparent disclosure issue in the 2025 accounts. They state Craig Crockford’s closing balance was £189,935, but also state the maximum amount owed during the year by Mr C Crockford was £183,935. A closing balance would normally be included in the maximum. This may be a typographical error, an OCR issue or a filing error, but it is a legitimate question for the company and its accountants.
Director loans are not automatically unlawful. But HMRC says that where a shareholder/director owes the company money and does not repay the loan within nine months of the end of the Corporation Tax accounting period, the company must use CT600A and pay Corporation Tax at 33.75% of the outstanding amount for loans made after 6 April 2022. HMRC also says loans over £10,000 can create benefit-in-kind and personal tax reporting issues. The PCAS accounts show both directors far above £10,000 and say no interest was paid. The public accounts do not show whether PCAS dealt with the tax correctly.
The related-party trail adds another layer. The 2024 accounts say £43,963 was due from Four Walls Housing CIC, compared with £117,708 in 2023, and £1,201 was due from Whitstable Investment Company Limited. Both are described as companies under common control of the directors. The 2025 accounts say £5,514 was due from Whitstable Investment Company Limited, while £1,448 was due to Four Walls Housing CIC. These sums are smaller than the director balances, but they show financial connections between PCAS and other director-controlled entities.
Hire purchase is another trend. PCAS’s hire-purchase liabilities were £42,329 due within one year at 31 March 2023, then £9,726 due within one year and £105,556 due after more than one year at 31 March 2024, then £23,874 due within one year and £156,063 due after more than one year at 31 March 2025. The 2025 accounts show fixed assets held under hire purchase with a net book value of £166,234. This looks like investment in vehicles or equipment rather than a bank-debt crisis, but it is still a future cash call.
The political responsibility now lands at County Hall. KCC’s own Cabinet page says Cabinet members give guidance on budget priorities, monitor performance and lead improvement of related council services. KCC’s public Cabinet page listed Diane Morton as Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, while a KCC news release dated 23 May 2026 says Diane Morton is stepping down and Georgia Foster “will move into this role”. KCC’s corporate management page lists Sarah Hammond as Interim Corporate Director Adult Social Care and Health.
The value-for-money question is not whether PCAS had cash in the bank. It did. It is not whether PCAS employed staff. It did. The question is whether KCC’s contract monitoring joined up the dots: £16.53m in ASC payments, a rising annual payment profile, an Inadequate CQC rating, special measures, unaudited accounts, no public income statement, related-party balances and director balances rising to £380,615 interest-free. If KCC did join those dots, it should publish the assurance. If it didn’t, Kent taxpayers are entitled to ask why not.
The questions now are precise. Has PCAS repaid the director balances since 31 March 2025? Were the advances formally approved, minuted and documented? Was section 455 tax paid where required? Were benefit-in-kind obligations dealt with? What arrangements exist between PCAS, Four Walls Housing CIC and Whitstable Investment Company Limited? How many KCC-funded people were supported by PCAS when CQC rated the service Inadequate? And what review has been carried out by KCC’s adult social care leadership, its senior officer team and its local government efficiency portfolio?
No one should pretend this is just an accounting story. Supported living is about real people who rely on others for safe care, dignity, medicines, safeguarding and daily life. The accounts do not prove fraud. They do not prove insolvency. They do not prove unpaid tax. But they do show a publicly funded care provider whose directors owed the company a very large, interest-free sum while the regulator later found serious and widespread failings. That is enough to require answers from PCAS, and more than enough to require scrutiny from KCC.
Seen something the public should know about? Send tips, documents or concerns to TheShepwayVoxTeam(at)proton(dot)me. You can contact us in confidence, speak off the record in the first instance, and help us follow the evidence where it leads.
