Folkestone & Hythe District Council Caught in FOI Scandal Over Unsafe Housing Enforcement Data
Folkestone & Hythe District Council is facing a growing credibility crisis after a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosures reveal it cannot provide consistent data on one of its most serious legal powers — the Prohibition Order.
Across four FOI responses issued between 2021 and 2024, the council has released mutually incompatible figures for the number of Prohibition Orders it claims to have served on landlords in the private rented sector. These contradictions cannot be explained by clerical error, vague definitions, or time-period mismatches. Instead, they point to a far more serious breakdown: the council’s apparent inability to maintain or report accurate records on legal enforcement.
In the wake of similar data inconsistencies in other housing-related disclosures — including temporary accommodation costs — the pattern now appears systemic, not incidental.
What Is a Prohibition Order — and Why Does It Matter?
A Prohibition Order, under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, is a formal enforcement mechanism used by local authorities when a property contains hazards that pose a serious threat to health or safety.
These orders may prohibit all or part of a property from being used for residential purposes. They are typically based on Category 1 or 2 hazards identified during a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection — including dangerous electrics, lack of heating, structural instability, or risk of fire.
There are two kinds:
-
Standard Prohibition Order – served after inspection, with time for the landlord to respond or appeal.
-
Emergency Prohibition Order (EPO) – served immediately where there is an imminent risk of serious harm, under Section 43 of the Act.
The use of such orders is rare and legally significant: they are meant to signal that a property is unsafe for human habitation, and that the council is taking decisive action to protect tenants.
Four FOIs, Four Stories
Below is a breakdown of four publicly available FOI responses issued by the council, each offering a different version of enforcement history.
1. FOI 00093585 (Responded July 2022)
Covers 2017–2021. 93585 – Response reports:
Total (2018–2021): 6 orders
2. FOI 00054310 (Responded Aug 2021)
Covers financial years 2018/19 to 2020/21. Reports:
Total: 1 order (versus 6 over the same period in FOI 93585)
3. FOI 00146048 (Responded July 2023)
Covers 2021–2023. Reports:
Total: 0 orders
4. FOI 00232343 (Responded Feb 2025)
Covers the period from 2018 to February 2025. Reports:
-
Total Prohibition Orders (including emergency orders): 3
This contradicts all previous responses.
Irreconcilable Contradictions
Let’s compare the figures side-by-side:
Even if all four datasets used different definitions, that explanation falls apart because they each refer explicitly to formal Prohibition Orders served on PRS properties under the Housing Act. Either the data systems are broken, or the council is not being honest with the public — or both.
A History of Discrepancy
This is not the first time the council has published contradictory figures in response to FOI requests. In May 2025, The Shepway Vox Team revealed substantial inconsistencies in the council’s reporting of temporary accommodation expenditure. In one official document, total costs were recorded as £818,072.91 in 2023/24. In another, for the same year, the total was £473,181.63, a discrepancy of £344,891.
That investigation concluded that the council’s data practices were “neither transparent nor reliable.” It warned that such inconsistency pointed not to clerical oversight, but to structural and governance failings.
The contradictions over Prohibition Orders now confirm that warning.
The Human Cost
This isn’t just a bureaucratic mix-up. The council’s inability to maintain accurate enforcement records has real-world consequences.
Tenants living in unsafe accommodation — suffering from black mould, electrical hazards, or dangerous overcrowding — depend on the council’s housing enforcement officers to act decisively. When Prohibition Orders are issued, it shows the authority has taken those risks seriously. When they are not, it often means landlords go unchallenged and tenants remain in danger.
But if the council doesn’t even know how many orders it issued — or falsely claims to have issued more or fewer than it did — it undermines the very concept of public protection.
“If they’re getting the numbers this wrong, how can we know whether any enforcement was actually carried out at all?” asks one local housing solicitor.
Calls for Action
In response to these revelations, campaigners and community groups are now calling for:
-
An independent audit of all housing enforcement data since 2017
-
A public apology and correction from council leadership
-
A formal investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
-
Referral to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for maladministration
Under Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999, councils are legally required to “make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised.” That includes record keeping and transparency.
Right now, Folkestone & Hythe District Council appears to be failing on both counts.
The Bottom Line
The use of Prohibition Orders is not theoretical. These are legal lifelines for families forced to live in unsafe and often exploitative housing conditions. If the council doesn’t know when or where it issued them — or if it provides different answers depending on who asks — then the system is not fit for purpose.
Until the council provides a coherent, audited account of its housing enforcement record, one question must be asked:
If they can’t get this right, what else are they getting wrong — and who is being put at risk because of it?
The Shepway Vox Team
Dissent is NOT a Crime
Leave a Reply