Serious Discrepancies Found in Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s Temporary Accommodation Costs

Folkestone & Hythe District Council is facing serious questions over the reliability and consistency of its published data on Temporary Accommodation (TA) costs, after a review of publicly released Freedom of Information (FoI) responses revealed multiple discrepancies across different years and datasets. The conflicting figures—published openly on the Council’s own FoI disclosure log—cast doubt on the accuracy of financial reporting and raise concerns over transparency in how homelessness expenditure is recorded and communicated to the public.

A detailed comparison of four separate FoI responses from the Council—reference numbers 0029457, 00239189, 00222234 and 00168738—shows that the figures for total TA costs vary substantially for the same financial years. The Council has published these numbers publicly on its website, meaning they are accessible not only to local residents, but to auditors, journalists, and government bodies across the UK and beyond.

A Breakdown of the Published Discrepancies

FoI Reference: 0029457

• 2021/22 Total TA Costs = £366,835.69

• 2022/23 Total TA Costs = £219,469.30

• 2023/24 Total TA Costs = £818,072.91

FoI Reference: 00239189

• 2021/22 Total TA Costs = £389,103

• 2022/23 Total TA Costs = £378,725

• 2023/24 Total TA Costs = £506,611

FoI Reference: 00222234

• 2023/24 Total TA Costs = £473,181.63

FoI Reference: 00168738

• 2021/22 Total TA Costs = £389,193

• 2022/23 Total TA Costs = £378,725

The only instance of consistency across these datasets is the 2022/23 figure of £378,725, which appears identically in both 00239189 and 00168738. Every other figure varies—sometimes by tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds.

A Defence That Falls Flat

The Council along with Cllr Prater has attempted to explain at least one of the discrepancies that being: FoI Reference: 00239189. In response to a resident query about a £55,503.95 difference in homelessness expenditure, Councillor Tim Prater  & the Council provided an explanation citing administrative issues for 23/24. According to their statement:

• £25,592.00 of the difference was due to TA charges from December 2022 being wrongly included in the 2023/24 financial year due to a “data filtration error”.

• The remaining ~£29,000 was said to result from issues with financial timing, expenditure under £250 being excluded from transparency data, and adjustments made in the internal TA system.

They also reiterated that around financial year-end, transparency data may experience “minor misalignment” with statutory financial accounts and internal data held by the Council’s finance system.

But scrutiny of the data shows this explanation does not address the broader problem: multiple FoI responses reporting different total costs for the same years. In particular, the 2023/24 figures from FoI 0029457 (£818,072.91), 00239189 (£506,611), and 00222234 (£473,181.63) cannot be reconciled by a one-time filtration error or financial-year rollover. The scale of the divergence—over £344,000 between the highest and lowest figures—raises more questions than it answers.

Even for earlier years, such as 2021/22, the costs vary between £366,835.69 (0029457), £389,103 (00239189), and £389,193 (00168738). For a statutory authority managing tight budgets and public funds, discrepancies of this kind are not simply clerical oversights—they signal systemic reporting flaws or a failure to apply consistent data definitions across departments and poor internal controls.

Public Data, Public Accountability

What makes the matter particularly concerning is that all of these figures are publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act and available to view on the Council’s FoI disclosure log. This means the Council is not merely inconsistent in internal reporting—it is disseminating conflicting information to the public and the press. For a local authority, such errors undermine trust, reduce accountability, and pose serious questions about governance.

Furthermore, these inconsistencies could have consequences for policy decisions, funding allocations, and external audits. Local residents, councillors, and oversight bodies cannot properly scrutinise homelessness policy if the baseline figures being provided shift from one publication to the next.

A Pattern Beyond Error?

This is far from the first time Folkestone & Hythe District Council has faced scrutiny over the accuracy of its published data. Campaigners, residents, and local researchers have repeatedly raised concerns about the Council’s transparency—particularly in relation to housing, homelessness spending, and planning decisions. But this latest episode points to something more troubling than simple miscommunication or administrative oversight.

When legally mandated Freedom of Information disclosures—submitted in good faith—produce figures that are not only inconsistent but outright contradictory, the issue is no longer clerical. It appears structural. Such a pattern suggests systemic weaknesses in data management, financial controls, and public accountability.

The Council now faces clear and pressing questions:

• Which, if any, of the published figures for Temporary Accommodation costs are accurate?

• How will the explanation differ from the one already offered, which has so far failed to resolve the contradictions?

• And crucially, what steps is the Council taking to ensure that future disclosures do not further undermine public trust?

Until an independent audit is conducted and a coherent, transparent plausible explanation is issued, the inconsistencies in the Council’s own published records will continue to raise legitimate doubts. Residents deserve reliable data. Researchers require clarity. And local democracy depends on trust.

As the saying goes: when in a hole—stop digging.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime