Folkestone & Hythe District Council Under Fire: Nearly £500,000 in Unexplained Payments Exposed Amid ‘Highest Standards’ Claim

The rot at the heart of Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) is no longer a matter of opinion—it is now demonstrably a pattern. What began as seven questionable contracts flagged in a prior investigation has now ballooned into a full-blown scandal of financial inconsistency and apparent disregard for procurement law. The numbers are staggering, the oversight almost non-existent, and the silence from the top deafening.

As the old saying goes: once is a mistake, twice is a pattern, three times is a habit. But what, then, is five times? Ten? Fifteen?

The answer, in the case of FHDC, appears to be institutional failure dating back to 2018.

Contract Registers Say One Thing, Supplier Payments Say Another

New evidence from the council’s own published payment data reveals that three contractors were collectively paid over £152,000 more than the combined gross value of contracts listed for them on the council’s public contract register for 2024/25.

Let’s look at the numbers:

• Marsh Groundworks Ltd were awarded two contracts with a combined net value of £17,558—grossing to £21,069.60.

• Yet, payment data shows they received £66,185, an unexplained discrepancy of £45,115.

• Capel Groundworks were awarded three contracts worth £27,535 net (£33,042 gross),

• but were actually paid £78,234, showing an excess of £45,192.

• Harmer & Sons Ltd received two contracts totalling £16,790 net (£20,148 gross),

• but were ultimately paid £81,888—a £61,740 difference.

These three examples alone account for £152,047 in payments beyond the values published in the council’s own contract register. When combined with the £153,000 exposed in our earlier investigation, the total now exceeds £305,000 in apparent overpayments or off-register spending. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Further cases are already under scrutiny, with the overall sum edging dangerously close to half a million pounds of public money disbursed without any transparent contractual authorisation.

Yet astonishingly, in Report Number AuG/25/08, the current Section 151 Officer, Alan Mitchell—who, to be clear, did not preside over the period in question (that responsibility lies with his predecessor, Lydia Morrison, now departed)—states:

“The Council’s procurement and contract variation practices continue to uphold the highest standards of legality, transparency, and value for money.”

That single sentence warrants scrutiny, because it flies in the face of documented financial discrepancies and public record inconsistencies.

• What kind of transparency omits hundreds of thousands of pounds in unexplained expenditure?
• What kind of legality permits large-scale spending that bypasses the contract register entirely?
• What kind of value for money accepts such unaccountable and unexplained use of public funds?

To assert such lofty principles in the face of direct, numerical contradictions is not only disingenuous—it is profoundly insulting to the public, whose money is being spent without visibility, accountability, or consequence.

If these are the council’s “highest standards,” one can only imagine what failure looks like.

A Cultural Problem, Not a Clerical Error

To pretend this is an administrative oversight is to insult the public’s intelligence. What we are witnessing is not a clerical blip, but a culture of opacity and circumvention that has taken root across multiple financial years. And despite years of promises, warnings, and audits, it has not been addressed.

Senior management at FHDC, and particularly its most senior official—the Chief Executive—have failed to stem the tide. Since taking office on 1 April 2018, the current Chief Executive has presided over what can only be described as a procurement system in meltdown. Her repeated commitments to reform have proven hollow. No meaningful change has taken root. The problem has become entrenched.

As we previously stated—and now repeat—sometimes, you must lop the head off the hydra to create meaningful organisational change. This is not just a systems failure. It is a leadership failure.

Auditors Have Already Sounded the Alarm

This isn’t the first time alarm bells have been rung. Both the internal and external auditors have highlighted what they term “poor internal controls” at FHDC. They have issued recommendations—some urgent, others repeated over multiple years. Yet their findings seem to have fallen on deaf ears at the top of the organisation.

No amount of strategic plans or consultation documents can mask the fact that real corrective action has not occurred. What we have instead is a widening chasm between public-facing data and internal accountability.

The Statutory Officers: Where Are They?

FHDC’s constitution designates three key officers with legal responsibility for governance:

• The Head of Paid Service (i.e., the Chief Executive) – Dr Susan Priest,

• The Monitoring Officer, Ewan Green and

• The Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer). Lydia Morrison now left the building

These three are not ceremonial titles—they are legally mandated statutory roles tasked with ensuring that the Council complies with laws, operates with integrity, and uses public money responsibly.

But on their collective watch, financial irregularities have multiplied. Repeated failures to ensure proper contracting procedures—along with an inability or unwillingness to reconcile public records—represent a dereliction of statutory duty.

Political Will: Missing in Action

The council’s Part 8 constitution sets out how the dismissal of the Head of Paid Service can be initiated—by councillors. But herein lies another problem: political will.

Despite eight years of continued contractual and financial irregularities, there has been no sign that elected members are prepared to act. No motion of no confidence. No formal inquiry. No disciplinary proceedings. Just vague statements and continued rubber-stamping of officer recommendations.

One is left to wonder: Do councillors have the political courage—or as some put it, the vitamins—to do what is clearly required?

The Bottom Line

This is public money. Money that could be funding frontline services, repairing public spaces, or helping residents through the cost-of-living crisis. Instead, it is vanishing into black holes of opaque procurement and unchecked contractor payments.

This Council has had years to clean up its act. It has received reports, warnings, recommendations, and ample opportunity. But it has not delivered.

The conclusion is now inescapable: The problem is not just procedural. The problem is cultural. And the responsibility lies at the top.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council cannot afford more of the same. Neither can its residents.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime