Investigation: 49 FHDC Contracts Worth £28.6m Breached Procurement Rules — Standstill Period Abandoned, Oversight Missing

EXCLUSIVE — A Shepway Vox Team investigation has uncovered that Folkestone & Hythe District Council failed to apply the mandatory 10-day standstill period before activating 49 public contracts worth over £28.6 million, awarded between 5 May 2023 — the day after the new Green-led administration took office — and 23 February 2025.

This legal safeguard, designed to ensure fairness and transparency in public procurement, was systematically bypassed — raising important questions about governance processes, compliance oversight, and procurement accountability during this period.

The total value of these contracts, as published on Contracts Finder, amounts to £28,609,069.

This pattern raises serious questions about the Council’s compliance with both national procurement law in force at the time, and its own Contract Standing Orders (CSOs).

The Law in Force — And What It Required

All 49 contracts were awarded during the operational life of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) — a statutory framework that remained binding until the Procurement Act 2023 came into force on 24 February 2025.

Under Regulation 87, the Council was expected to observe a standstill period of at least 10 calendar days between issuing award decision notices and starting the contract. This cooling-off period is designed to:

• Allow unsuccessful suppliers to challenge decisions,

• Promote fairness and transparency,

• Minimise legal risk.

Additionally:

• Regulation 86 required proper award notifications to all bidders, including reasons for selection and details of the standstill period.

• Regulation 50 clarified that the “award date” refers to the decision to award, not contract signature or commencement.

All 49 contracts fall within the timeframe and conditions where these rules would normally apply.

The Council’s Own Rules — Were They Followed?

Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s Contract Standing Orders (Part 10 of Constitution)  further reinforce these expectations.

CSO 8.2(b):

“Where appropriate, a standstill period complying with Regulation 87 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 is incorporated into the final award process.” (Part 10/25)

The wording “where appropriate” is clearly intended to allow limited discretion — for example, in urgent or exempted cases. But its repeated omission across dozens of contracts prompts a reasonable question:

Has the Council’s interpretation of the phrase ‘where appropriate’ resulted in the routine omission of the standstill period — intentionally or otherwise — despite legal and procedural expectations?

No published waivers, exemptions, or formal justifications have been made available to explain these omissions — despite the value and visibility of the contracts involved.

Examples of Contracts Activated Before Standstill Expired

Data published on Contracts Finder shows contract start dates that consistently fall well within the 10-day standstill window, including:

Heating System Refurbishment – Win Pine House

• Supplier: Stonegrove Ltd

• Value: £979,561.78

• Awarded: 17 June 2024

• Started: 20 June 2024 (3 days later – which, based on its nature and value, would have warranted a standstill under both PCR 2015 and CSO 8.2(b))

Installation of Mobility Scooter Storage

• • Supplier: Steadline Ltd

  • Value: £364,236.54

  • Awarded: 25 Jan 2024

  • Start Date: 2 Jan 2024

  • Started 23 days before award – which, based on its nature and value, would have warranted a standstill under both PCR 2015 and CSO 8.2(b)

PAS2035 Retrofit Complete Bureau Service

• Supplier: Green Gnomes Ltd

• Value: £328,470.00

• Awarded: 20 Oct 2023

• Start Date: 11 Jan 2023

• Started 282 days before award – which, based on its nature and value, would have warranted a standstill under both PCR 2015 and CSO 8.2(b)

None of these appear to have been treated as emergency procurements. All were planned, advertised contracts with defined award and start dates — and no indication that a lawful waiver process was followed.

Financial Significance — And Serious Audit Oversight Risk

These were not low-value, incidental contracts. The combined value of the 49 contracts, according to the Contracts Finder data; which failed to observe the standstill period totals £28,609,069 — a figure that far exceeds audit materiality thresholds.

• In 2023/24, the Council awarded 25 contracts worth £10,211,549.74

• In 2024/25 (up to 23 February), a further 23 contracts totalled £18,365,337.58

• A single contract in 2025/26 (worth £32,182) appears to be forward-dated

For context, the external audit materiality threshold for FHDC in 2023/24 was approximately £2 million. This means the value of the contracts affected by this governance issue is five times the level at which financial misstatements could influence user decisions — and should, therefore, have triggered heightened scrutiny.

Yet:

• No disclosure of these procedural breaches appears in the Council’s Statement of Accounts

• No issues or caveats appear to have been raised by external auditors Grant Thornton in their Audit Findings Report 2023/24 or in the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24

• No internal audit reporting has publicly addressed the pattern of non-compliance with contracts since Dec 2022

If the Council deemed the 10-day standstill period “inappropriate” or exempt in any of these 49 cases, those decisions should have been formally documented, legally justified, and made publicly available in line with principles of transparency and accountability.

In the absence of such records, there is a clear and reasonable risk that key procurement controls were bypassed, whether through oversight or embedded practice. This not only exposes the Council to governance and audit risk, but also creates the potential for reputational harm and the perception of procedural impropriety, even if no wrongdoing occurred.

Where Were the Safeguards?

Monitoring Officers

• Amandeep Khroud (until December 2024)

• Ewan Green (appointed 29 January 2025)

Under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Monitoring Officers are required to report unlawful conduct. No Section 5 report has been published in relation to these contract activations.

Section 151 Officer – Lydia Morrison during this period

Tasked with ensuring the legality and integrity of financial transactions, the Council’s Chief Finance Officer has not, to our knowledge, made any public statement regarding these matters.

Chief Executive – Dr Susan Priest

As Head of Paid Service, Dr Priest bears responsibility for ensuring officer conduct aligns with law and Constitution. No internal reviews, disciplinary procedures, or public explanations have been recorded.

What the Rules Say — And What Was (Not) Done

• CSO 10.1 requires “openness,” “equal treatment,” and “sufficient time”

• CSO 5.6 defines failure to comply with Contract Standing Orders as a disciplinary offence

To date, no lawful waivers, emergency exemptions, or supporting documentation appear to have been produced for these 49 contracts — despite the scale and repetition.

What Must Now Be Considered

In light of the value, frequency, and governance implications, the Shepway Vox Team respectfully recommends:

1. An independent review of procurement compliance and contract governance

2. Disclosure of any internal legal advice, waivers, or risk assessments relating to these contracts

3. Formal review of the Council’s 2023/24 accounts for financial accuracy and legal compliance

4. Clarification from statutory officers on whether these standstill periods were deemed unnecessary — and if so, on what basis

5. Disciplinary review, where appropriate, under CSO 5.6

Final Word

49 contracts. £28.6 million. No standstill period observed. No waivers published. No documented internal accountability response is publicly available.

This was not a one-off oversight. It was a consistent, cross-departmental pattern — a procedural failure repeated 49 times, affecting over £28.6 million in public contracts. It raises serious, material concerns about how procurement law, internal controls, and ethical governance have been applied — or set aside.

To borrow from the ever-relevant philosophy of local government commentator Mrs Angry:

“The public should never forget the most important quality to have is an instinct for misinformation — and a deep-seated suspicion of the way in which local authorities operate. Always assume the worst: you’ll almost always be right.”

At Folkestone & Hythe District Council, the public has every reason to ask: Why did this happen — and who allowed it?

Folkestone & Hythe District Council has been contacted for comment.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness