Folkestone & Hythe Customer Access Strategy: Digital by Choice or Digital Exclusion?

Folkestone & Hythe District Council has approved a new Customer Access Strategy 2026 -29, built around a simple promise: residents should be able to access council services in the way that suits them best — online if they want, but also by phone and face-to-face when they need it.

On paper, the council has a strong digital platform to build from. The strategy says MyAccount is already used by 81.36% of households, and that 385 additional online forms and processes were introduced during the previous “digital by default” phase. In 2024/25, the contact centre received 76,000 calls, while residents completed more than 71,000 online forms, and the council recorded 670,706 website “hits” (with 1,918,664 page views). The strategy also says 5,000+ contacts were made at the council office last year for service and assisted self-service.

But the debate at the council meeting revealed a much sharper truth: a “digital by choice” strategy only works if residents genuinely have a choice. And multiple councillors — from rural Romney Marsh to urban East Folkestone — warned that for many people the choice is disappearing.

Cllr Gary Fuller (Lib Dem – pictured), presenting the strategy, said: “Serving residents is fundamental to our role as a Council, so it is vital that we have the right strategy to support people to access the services that we offer.” He praised the shift away from the old approach: “Our previous customer access strategy took a digital by default approach… However, the cost of living crisis and housing pressures have significantly increased the number of residents who need that more personalised and in-depth support…”

He framed the new direction as “a focus on digital by choice, inclusivity and continuous improvement,” with “a real need for alternative ways for residents to get the support they require, including those who can’t engage with us digitally.”

That “can’t engage” point became the heart of the debate — and councillors argued it is not a niche problem.

One of the bluntest critiques came from Cllr Nicola Keen (Lab – pictured), who said the council’s availability does not match residents’ lives. “Our staff are only available to our residents between 10 and four. I don’t understand how we feel that people fit into that box of 10 till four.” She described residents being stuck waiting: “when people ring, they’re on the phone for ages.” Her conclusion was direct: “10 till four is not adequate for council service, I’m sorry, it really isn’t.”

This wasn’t just about convenience — it was about access, particularly for people who are already under strain.

In rural areas, the fear was that the council’s “multi-channel” promise could quietly shrink in practice. Cllr Paul Thomas (Ind) described a “rollback of services” over time: “we used to have a one-stop shop… a member of the customer team… would come down to New Romley on a Wednesday morning… That got rolled back… to a little kiosk… That’s now been rolled back.” His warning was that a digital strategy collides with rural reality: “where we’re in a digitally deprived area, like we are… we’ve got an ageing population… please, can we make sure that we really do push these service providers… to make sure that we give people the best digital connexion that’s available.”

But the most politically explosive intervention came from East Folkestone — because it underlined that the problem is not only infrastructure. It is affordability.

Cllr Jackie Meade said: “I obviously represent East Folkestone. We are one of the poorest wards. And as much as the marsh can’t get a signal, East Folkestone can’t afford a signal.” Then came the line that should make every “digital transformation” powerpoint pause: “the people who can’t get online to try and talk to people aren’t giving you feedback, they’re giving up.”

If that is even partly true, it means the council may be measuring satisfaction mainly from residents who are already connected, already confident, and already able to persist through the process. That risks building a customer strategy around the most digitally capable users — precisely the opposite of what “inclusivity” is supposed to mean.

Other councillors backed the same lived experience. Cllr Adrian Lockwood (Lab) described what digital poverty looks like on the ground: “we have people who have top-up accounts, and when the data runs out on that account, that’s it for the month. They’re stuffed, they’re offline.” He said some residents previously relied on public internet access: “Some of these people used to go to the library and use the internet connexion there, but that’s been taken away.”

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee (Con) added that even residents you might assume are comfortable online still struggle with the modern “digital front door” in health and public services: “How many people have had local residents ask them for help with the e-consult, it’s quite amazing.”

Then there was the practical, day-to-day usability point: council systems that technically exist, but are too fiddly for real life. Cllr Meade gave a concrete example: “trying to book a visitor’s parking slot in your CPZ area… It’s never taken me less than half an hour to try and find my way through the system. That’s not good.” Her bottom line: “We cannot rely on the digital. We are a people service. People want to talk to people and preferably face to face.”

This matters because the strategy itself says the council wants to “resolve… at the first point of contact” and reduce demand created by avoidable repeat chasing. If tasks take residents half an hour — or they can’t do them at all — the system simply exports the workload: to councillors’ inboxes, to voluntary groups, or back to the council in a more complex form later.

There is also a formal equality question hiding in plain sight.

The council’s Equality Impact Assessment for the strategy is a Stage 1 screening and concludes a full Stage 2 assessment is not required, stating no negative impacts were identified and that the strategy’s ethos is to ensure everyone can access services. But councillors raised the risk that ethos is not enough without direct user-led design. Cllr Tony Cooper (Lab) pointed members to the strategy’s accessibility commitments and then flagged a basic operational contradiction: “If someone’s got an issue with the council, for example, 8 o’clock, we can’t see or visit any council officers because the doors shut until 10.” He argued the council should not assume it knows what people need: “I would suggest that we actually consult with the people, with the disabled groups, for example, and other groups, and see what their needs are. Unless we know what their needs are, I don’t think we can make assumptions.”

That is not a side issue. If you redesign access to public services in a way that works brilliantly for confident online users but leaves disabled people, older residents, people with language barriers, people in insecure housing, or residents on top-up data “stuffed… offline”, then “digital by choice” starts to look like “digital by luck”.

So what does the council actually propose to do?

The strategy document sets out a “multi-channel” model (online, telephone, in person, and social media), plus a work programme that includes reviewing forms, simplifying journeys, introducing progress updates and case closures, exploring push notifications, and developing digital skills workshops (both in-house and with partners). It also includes commitments to review screen reader compatibility, hearing loop systems, language support services, and the operating model of the Customer Access Point.

Cllr Fuller also tried to address one of the sharpest affordability gaps: the cost of data. “There are things now like the UK National Data Banks… aimed at supporting people on low incomes with basically free data,” he said — adding that these schemes are “not as well publicised as they should be.”

That point is crucial because it means the council does have levers it can pull right now, without waiting for national infrastructure projects.

First, the National Databank (run by the Good Things Foundation, supported by mobile networks) works through local partner organisations and provides free mobile data SIMs for people who cannot afford to stay connected. It is, in effect, a practical intervention for the “top-up account” problem described in the chamber.

Second, most large broadband and mobile providers now offer “social tariffs” — cheaper packages for people on certain benefits — and Ofcom itself publishes a regularly updated list and explanation. In other words, a resident who is struggling may be able to reduce their monthly cost substantially, but only if someone tells them these tariffs exist and how to switch.

In a district with both rural not-spots and urban deprivation, simply signposting these options properly — and helping residents through the switching process — could be one of the fastest “customer access” wins available.

But the debate suggests the council will need to go further than signposting if it wants the strategy to work for the people who currently “give up”.

Here are practical, council-doable options that fit the strategy’s own “multi-channel” promise, and directly respond to the problems raised in the chamber.

One is hours and queuing. If “10 till four” is the access window, residents who work, care for family, or live with disability-related routines are being told to fit their lives around the council. Extending phone availability earlier and later, and introducing a proper call-back and message option, would directly address the “no way to speak to anyone or leave a message” frustration described in the strategy’s feedback section — and it would reduce repeat dialling that clogs the lines.

Another is place-based access for rural towns and villages. If New Romney lost a one-stop shop, then the “multi-channel” answer cannot just be “go online.” The council could run scheduled pop-up customer sessions in community venues — libraries, town council offices, community centres — with bookable assisted-digital appointments. That restores the “immediate support” councillors described, without needing a full-time office footprint.

A third is “digital help that doesn’t shame people”. Digital skills workshops only work if they are easy to access, non-judgemental, and tied to real tasks people actually need to do: council tax, benefits, housing, parking, reporting issues. Pairing these sessions with device access (loan schemes, refurbished laptops, library devices) and data support (National Databank referrals) would tackle the full reality of digital poverty: not just skills, but cost and kit.

A fourth is task redesign. The CPZ visitor booking example is a warning flare. If a system routinely takes half an hour, the interface is the problem, not the resident. The council should treat time-to-complete as a core performance metric, publish it, and redesign the worst journeys first — especially for high-volume services like housing, council tax and parking.

A fifth is “human-first access for complex cases”. The strategy itself notes that access is often “deeply personal and often complex.” That means triage matters. For homelessness, safeguarding, urgent housing repairs, serious debt, and enforcement disputes, online forms should not be the only front door. A dedicated line or booked call slot for complex cases prevents vulnerable residents being bounced between channels.

A sixth is accessibility designed with users, not for them. Cllr Cooper’s point about consulting disabled groups is not a procedural nicety. It is how you avoid building barriers into a system by accident. Co-design sessions with disability organisations, older residents, people with limited English, and frontline voluntary groups will quickly reveal what does and does not work — including things officers may never encounter personally.

A seventh is proactive updates that reduce chasing. Residents’ frustration often isn’t the initial contact — it’s the silence afterwards. If the council can implement even basic SMS/email updates (“received”, “assigned”, “next step”, “completed”), it will cut repeat calls and rebuild trust. The strategy talks about progress notifications; the public will judge it on whether those updates actually arrive.

Finally, the council should treat digital disadvantage as a local inequality issue, not just a customer service issue. The Ofcom research shows “digital disadvantage” is driven by weak connectivity, cost pressures, lack of confidence, inaccessible design, and harms like scams — and it can lead to stress, anxiety, missed opportunities and withdrawal. That matches what councillors described in plain language: people being “stuffed… offline,” unable to get through, and ultimately “giving up.”

If the council wants this strategy to matter, the test is not whether MyAccount uptake stays high among the already-connected. The test is whether the people who currently can’t get online, can’t stay online, or can’t reach a person, feel the difference within months — not years.

Because when access to public services becomes a maze, “customer strategy” stops being a corporate document and becomes something much more basic: whether residents can get help when they need it, in the real world they actually live in.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent