DHSC rejected £23m offer and full gown remake from Mone linked PPE Medpro

The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (DHSC) has rejected two main offices of the MEDPRO personal protection equipment, including a full new version of 25 million sterile rewards or a $ 23 million batch, can detect business issues exclusively.

The offers, which were submitted on the basis of no error, were presented first in December 2022, then again shortly before the start of the trial in June 2025-until the trial was remedied, as the contract was disposed of the contract of 122 million pounds of sterling in the Supreme Court.

Despite the possibility of resolving the issue without recognition of responsibility, DHSC rejected both options – a decision, according to MedPro, the taxpayers expected another 5 million pounds in legal fees and prolongs what the company describes as a political attempt as a “scapegoat” of its managers and supporters.

“We were ready to reshape the full demand or pay 23 million pounds. These large offers were rejected,” a PPE MEDPRO spokesman told Business Matters. “This was never related to dresses – it’s related to DHSC failures and deviated from scrutiny from senior politicians.”

According to the documents that Business Matters now saw, PPE MedPro presented the following offers to DHSC:

• June 2025: The orders of the dress of 25 million people were offered through the Chinese manufacturer, without any cost of the government and without recognition of mistakes.
• June 23, 2025: A cash settlement of 23 million pounds was offered, with money available through its main supporter, while it was described as a “last opportunity” for stability before the ruling.

The government rejected both offers without providing the opposite. This flagrantly contradicts how a separate conflict of 135 million pounds is resolved with Primerdesign Ltd, which was quietly settled on the basis of non -innovation for a period of 5 million pounds, weeks before its scheduled trial.

A claim of 122 million pounds and 5 million pounds for taxpayers

DHSC claims that the gowns provided by the MedPro Personal Equipment during the epidemic were not sterile. MEDPro has repeatedly denied any violation of the contract, instead that any pollution of a dress occurred after delivery while the gowns were under DHSC control.

The company cited a series of failures in treating the garment, storage and inspection – including containers stored in open fields for more than a year, and the gowns test conducted more than 500 days after birth.

MEDPRO argues that the government’s refusal of its offers-especially in light of its 6-year-old stock of surgical gowns, most of which are with a shelf life for only two years-is evidence that litigation is not financially or operating, but political.

Barrowman and Mone target?

The case has drawn intense media scrutiny due to PPE MedPro Businessman Doug Paruman and his wife, Bouna Michel Moon, Which was the subject of political and public criticism alike since the contract became general knowledge.

MEDPRO now claims that the company was “distinguished” by the government for political reasons – noting that DHSC knew that the company had limited money, yet it continued to follow a complete recovery through an expensive experience.

The company said in the final settlement letter: “This litigation is a clear state of the regret of the buyer, after a long period of the event.” “It was a matter of PPE MedPro and its darkness as a consortium … to protect the very important conservative politicians from scrutiny.”

What happens after that?

The trial concluded in late July, and it is expected that Mrs. Justice Kokrill will issue her ruling before October. If the court rules in favor of PPE MedPro, it will ask DHSC’s decision to reject a presentation of approximately five the full claim value, and why a similar dispute has been settled quietly elsewhere.

With the stability of dust, the government may face renewed pressure-not only on purchase practices during the epidemic, but also about how to choose companies to follow up, and at any cost of the public wallet.

“We have tried, over and over again, settling this,” said a PPE MedPro spokesman. “It is now up to the court – but the consequences of this case go beyond our company.”