Council Fails Own Rules: £81,974 Paid to Three Contractors with No Public Contract Record

Part 10 of Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s Constitution is explicit: “All contracts of a value of £5,000 or more are to be included on the Council’s Contract Register.” Yet, in July 2025 alone, the Council authorised three payments to three separate suppliers totalling £81,974 — none of which appear on the Register.

This is not an isolated oversight. Time and again, we have highlighted persistent discrepancies between what the Council’s officers are legally required to do and what they actually do. Their repeated failure to declare contractors undermines transparency and erodes confidence in the integrity of procurement processes.

The inability to match supplier names and payments with an officially listed contract is not a mere clerical error; it signals a deeper governance issue. By failing to uphold its own Constitution — its foundational legal framework — the Council risks creating a culture of opacity, leaving residents in the dark about who is being paid and why.

For nearly a decade, we have reported on these persistent failures, yet those responsible appear blind to the gravity of their actions. It is time to name names.

Ewan Green, the Council’s Monitoring Officer, bears statutory responsibility for ensuring legal governance and ethical conduct across the authority — covering both officers and elected councillors. His title speaks for itself: he is meant to monitor. Yet under his watch, these lapses have become routine, eroding transparency and accountability.

Then there is Alan Mitchell, the newly appointed Section 151 (s151) Officer, who carries legal responsibility for the sound administration of the Council’s financial affairs and oversight of corporate contracts. As the statutory finance lead, it is his duty to ensure every payment is properly authorised, recorded, and publicly declared.

That neither statutory officer has prevented or remedied these breaches is more than an administrative oversight; it reflects a governance culture that fails to meet even the Council’s own constitutional obligations.

And then there is Dr Susan Priest, the Council’s Chief Executive & Head of Paid Services. As the authority’s most senior officer, Dr Priest carries ultimate responsibility for the delivery of all council services. She oversees every member of staff and is tasked with providing clear leadership and strategic direction in partnership with elected councillors.

In December 2022, Dr Priest made it clear that all officers would receive training on contract management. That programme began in February 2023. Yet, despite this initiative, she, her senior officers, and the councillors responsible have failed to eradicate this ongoing problem — a failure that speaks to systemic cultural and governance shortcomings at the very top.

That this pattern of constitutional breaches persists under her leadership raises serious questions about her management of the council and accountability at the very top of the organisation.

And of course, there are also an elected member tasked with overseeing governance. The Cllr responsile is Cllr Tim Prater (Liberal Democrat), the Council’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Governance. His extensive portfolio includes strategic budgeting, financial management, corporate debt, treasury operations, revenues and benefits, business rates administration, corporate policy, contract management, HR and organisational development, corporate governance, legal oversight, and risk management.

Yet, as the evidence below makes clear, Cllr Prater — like the senior officers named above — is failing to discharge the responsibilities he was elected and appointed to uphold.

So, who are the three contractors whose names are conspicuously absent from the Council’s Contract Register?

The first missing contractor is MDM Props. On their website, MDM describes itself as “the leading specialist in artistic 3D solutions including art fabrication, scenic construction, model making and prop-making of all scales. Our team offers expertise in project management, production, draughting, metalwork, woodwork, sculpting, mould-making, engineering, scenic finishes, and painting, delivering projects with sensitivity, creativity, and integrity.”

According to the Council’s own published payment data, MDM Props received £46,180 (gross) in July 2025. Yet no corresponding entry exists on the Council’s Contract Register to disclose the awarded contract value or details. This omission denies residents transparency over why such a substantial payment has been made to a company not listed on the Register — a direct breach of the Council’s own constitutional requirements and a worrying lapse in procurement oversight.

The second contractor missing from the Contract Register is Leafield Environmental Ltd. In July 2025, the company received £19,152 (gross) from the Council for the replacement of litter bins.

On its website, Leafield describes itself as “home for your litter bin, recycling bin, traffic bollard, materials handling, agricultural and equine product requirements,” and notes that it was previously known as Linpac Environmental.

Despite this sizeable payment, no contract entry exists on the Council’s Register to confirm the contract’s awarded value, scope, or procurement process — another clear failure of transparency and governance.

The third contractor to receive payment without appearing on the Contract Register is FluxMetal Ltd. According to its website, FluxMetal is “a metalwork business specialising in commissions for events, artists, design practices, and public projects.”

In July 2025, the company was paid £16,641 (gross) by the Council. Yet, as with the other contractors, there is no record of this contract on the Council’s Register — a direct breach of the Council’s own Constitution and a further example of its failure to provide basic transparency over public spending.

Three contractors. Three payments. And not a single proper check or balance carried out by those entrusted with authorising these contracts and releasing public funds. All three contracts remain absent from the Council’s Contract Register, despite the Constitution’s explicit legal requirement for every contract over £5,000 to be published.

This failure leaves residents completely in the dark. Without published contract details, the public cannot know the agreed value of these contracts, whether these companies have been overpaid, or whether anything improper has occurred.

To be clear, we are not alleging wrongdoing. But the point is stark: when the Council repeatedly fails to follow its own processes and procedures, it denies residents the ability to hold it accountable — or to have confidence that every penny of public money is spent transparently and responsibly.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent