A PFI contract should grant an authority access to any information reasonably required to monitor the PFI company’s performance. The NAO found that of the survey respondents who monitor the maintenance programme, 35% reported they had insufficient access rights to allow them to do so. In one PFI hospital, the authority identified a large gap between the money paid into the lifecycle fund and what was being spent on maintenance. The difference could indicate that the PFI company was not carrying out the maintenance work as planned but the authority was unable to challenge whether this was the case because the PFI company denied it access to the relevant information. When asked whether this is acceptable, the IPA acknowledged that there were some “difficult investors” who “liked asymmetric information” on key parts of the contract. This means that the PFI company holds much more information on its performance compared to the authority, which limits the authority’s ability to challenge the PFI company. The IPA recognised that this information was “absolutely critical” in managing the expiry of PFI contracts and told us that it was working to get investors to share assets registers and the financial information needed.42 The IPA also explained that it was working with “key investors” to remind them of their responsibilities and planned to develop a protocol outlining how investors should operate during the expiry process.43