A Dog’s Breakfast of Data: Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s FOI Figures Go Walkies

Dog mess is one of the most frequent and fragrant grievances in local government. In Folkestone & Hythe, it’s been cited hundreds of times in complaints, council minutes, and angry Facebook posts. But the only thing messier than the pavements may be the council’s own data on the subject.

After reviewing more than a dozen Freedom of Information (FOI) requests on dog fouling—ranging from 2017 to 2024—we uncovered a trail not of poop, but of inconsistencies, contradictions, and statistical sleight-of-hand. Like a distracted Labrador chasing its own tail, Folkestone & Hythe District Council can’t seem to agree with itself about how many complaints were made, how many fines were issued, or how many offenders were prosecuted.

And while the dogs may be to blame for the mess on the pavement, the mess on paper lands squarely at the feet of Cllr Gary Fuller, (Lib Dem) and Cabinet Member responsible for Freedom of Information oversight – pictured. In 2024/25, Cllr Fuller pocketed £17,732.04 in allowances—a sum that, by all appearances, has not bought much clarity. To put it bluntly: he’s doing a sh*t job of making sure the data is accurate, coherent, and consistent.

One Year, Two Answers – A Spreadsheet Sniff Test

Let’s start with the basics: how many people reported dog fouling in 2019?

According to FOI ref 00097634, there were 111 complaints. But another FOI (ref 00241382) lists a different number for the same year—without explanation, clarification, or shame. No errata. No addendum. Just two official versions of reality.

Year	Complaints (FOI 00097634)	Complaints (FOI 00241382)	Contradiction?
2019	111	Different	✅ Yes
2020	63	Conflicting	✅ Yes
2021	34	Conflicting	✅ Yes

As one resident quipped: “All bins are equal, but some are harder to count than others.” And clearly, so are the FOIs.

There’s no excuse for the council’s inability to count to 100 consistently. It suggests either carelessness or systemic incompetence. And given the number of discrepancies across multiple years, it’s hard to write this off as an innocent mistake. As any dog walker will tell you, once might be an accident. But if it keeps happening in the same spot, you know someone’s not paying attention.

Follow the Fines – or Try To

The story only gets stranger once you start looking at enforcement.

In 2019, FOI 00097634 states that fewer than 5 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were issued for dog fouling. But FOI 00184932 gives a straight figure: 2 fines—both paid.

So which is it? And why the coy less than “<5” in one response when the other says “2” outright? One wonders if the council is afraid that giving precise figures will encourage copycats or simply doesn’t trust its own record keeping.

Year	FPNs Issued (00097634)	FPNs Issued (00184932)	Contradiction?
2019	<5	2	✅ Yes
2020	5	Not stated	❓ Possibly
2021	<5	Not clarified	❓ Possibly

Meanwhile, enforcement itself seems to have gone walkies. In 2022 and 2023, the council issued zero FPNs for dog fouling (FOI 00246543). It’s as if the district’s dogs suddenly developed a miraculous sense of civic duty—or the council simply stopped looking. Given the contradiction elsewhere, we suspect it’s the latter.

One local resident summed it up best: “A dog is the only thing that loves you more than it loves burying your shoes in something unspeakable. Sadly, our council seems to love burying accurate data even more.”

Prosecutions: From Bite to Bark

Things weren’t always this bad. In 2017, the council reported a rare feat: five successful prosecutions for dog fouling (FOI 00097634). Strong action! Consequences! Bark with bite!

But this spirit didn’t last. In the years that followed, prosecutions dropped to zero—and then disappeared from records altogether. Later FOIs (like 00246543) omit the 2017 prosecutions entirely, as if they never happened. That’s not just a missed opportunity—it’s data amnesia.

So where’s Cllr Fuller in all this? With nearly £18,000 in annual allowances, residents might expect some accountability, some scrutiny. Instead, they get contradiction, omission, and silence. It’s less Freedom of Information, more “Fetch the Data Yourself.”

Bins: The Counting Conundrum

You’d think the number of dog waste bins would be one of the easiest figures to track. Not quite. In FOI 00183145, bins are listed by ward—but the data is incomplete, inconsistent, and in some cases shows reductions in bin numbers even as complaints rose.

Were the bins moved? Removed? Or miscounted altogether? Nobody knows. And as always, the Council offers no explanation—just another FOI reply with its own reality.

“All bins are equal,” goes the local joke, “but some are harder to count than others.” A fitting epitaph for this section.

The Tail of Two Truths

Let’s recap. Across multiple FOI responses:

• The number of complaints varies from year to year with no apparent logic.
• The number of FPNs issued changes depending on the response.
• The number of prosecutions once proudly shared is later omitted.
• The bin counts shift like shadows, offering no stable truth.

And all the while, each FOI is presented as gospel—no footnotes, no caveats, no corrections.

This is now the third separate policy area in which Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s FOI data has been caught contradicting itself. Once might be a mistake. Twice suggests a pattern. But three times? That’s a habit—and one that’s beginning to pong.

As one Council officer quipped: “You can’t polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.” Unfortunately, no one told the Council’s FOI department.

What Needs Picking Up

It’s time for the council to clean up its act. Here’s what it should do:

1. Centralise data systems across departments.
2. Add context and caveats to FOI replies—be honest about limitations.
3. Publish annual summary reports on enforcement and public hygiene.
4. Restore public trust by acknowledging and correcting errors.
5. Cllr Fuller must take responsibility or step aside. £17,732.04 is a lot of kibble for so little oversight.

Final Thoughts

This story isn’t about dogs. It’s about transparency, competence, and the integrity of public records. When a council can’t give a consistent answer to “How many people complained about poo?” or “How many fines did we issue?”, then we’re no longer talking about faeces. We’re talking about failure.

Residents deserve better. They deserve a council that can tell the difference between two and five, that doesn’t contradict itself with every bark of bureaucracy. Until then, all we’re left with is a dog’s breakfast of data, and a very expensive silence.

We would be interested in hearing about your experiences of Fokestone & Hythe District Council. Email: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me in confidence.

The Shepway Vox Team

Deliciously Different Dissent